title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 1 February 2001 in Case C-237/99: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic, supported by United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 93/37/EEC — Public works contracts — Concept of "contracting authority")

text:
C 173/4                   EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          16.6.2001
1.    Where an examination of goods has been ordered by the                 of: A. La Pergola, President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet,
      customs authority for the purposes of verifying a declaration         D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and L. Sevón, Judges;
      which has been accepted and it has proved impossible to carry         J. Mischo, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
      out the examination because the goods have been removed from          judgment on 1 February 2001, in which it:
      the place of temporary storage without the authorisation of the
      relevant customs authority, the customs debt on importation is        1.    Declares that, since the public management and construction
      incurred under Article 203(1) of Council Regulation (EEC)                   entities of Val-de-Marne and Paris and the low-rent housing
      No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community                    corporation Logirel did not publish contract notices in the
      Customs Code.                                                               Official Journal of the European Communities concerning
                                                                                the public contracts announced by notices in the Bulletin
2.    It is possible for a customs debt on importation to be incurred             Officiel des Annonces des Marchés Publics of 7 and
      under Article 203(1) of Regulation No 2913/92 where                         16 February 1995 and the Moniteur des Travaux Publics et
      the customs declaration received by the customs office was                  du Bâtiment of 17 February 1995, the French Republic
      accompanied by technically correct certificates of origin corre-            has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive
      sponding to Form A and where the zero preferential tariff                   93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of
      applied to the goods covered by the declaration.                            procedures for the award of public works contracts, in particular
                                                                                Article 11(2) thereof;
(1) OJ C 136 of 15.5.1999.                                                  2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs;
                                                                            3.    Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
                                                                                Ireland to bear its own costs.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            (Fifth Chamber)
                          of 1 February 2001                                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
in Case C-237/99: Commission of the European Communi-                                                  (Fifth Chamber)
ties v French Republic, supported by United Kingdom of
             Great Britain and Northern Ireland (1)                                                  of 1 February 2001
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive                in Case C-333/99: Commission of the European Communi-
93/37/EEC — Public works contracts — Concept of ‘con-                                             ties v French Republic (1)
                          tracting authority’)
                                                                            (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Com-
                            (2001/C 173/06)                                 munity system for the conservation and management of
                                                                            fishery resources — Control of fishing and related activities
                                                                            — Inspection of fishing vessels and monitoring of landings
                      (Language of the case: French)                        (Article 5 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 170/83 and
                                                                            Article 1(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2241/87) — Temporary
                                                                            prohibition of fishing activities (Article 11(2) of Regulation
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      No 2241/87) — Penal or administrative action against
                     in the European Court Reports)                         those responsible for infringing the Community rules on
                                                                            conservation and monitoring (Article 5(2) of Regulation
In Case C-237/99: Commission of the European Communities                       No 170/83 and Article 1(2) of Regulation No 2241/87))
(Agent: M. Nolin) v French Republic (Agents: K. Rispal-
Bellanger, F. Million and S. Pailler) supported by United                                              (2001/C 173/07)
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent:
R.V. Magrill) — application for a declaration that, in the
context of various procedures, for the award of public                                           (Language of the case: French)
contracts for the construction of housing organised by public
development and construction entities and by low-rent hous-
ing corporations, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
obligations under Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June                                        in the European Court Reports)
1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award
of public works contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 54), in particular             In Case C-333/99: Commission of the European Communities
Article 11(2) thereof — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed                 (Agents: T. van Rijn and B. Mongin) v French Republic


title: Case F-86/05: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 12 September 2006 — De Soeten v Council (Pension — Request for early retirement without reduction of pension entitlement — Rejection of the request)

text:
               28.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/32

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 12 September 2006 — De Soeten v Council
   (Case F-86/05) (1)

   (Pension - Request for early retirement without reduction of pension entitlement - Rejection of the request)
   (2006/C 261/67)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Henders De Soeten (The Hague, Netherlands) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Simm and I. Sulce, Agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of the Council decision rejecting, under Article 9(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, the applicant's request for early retirement without reduction of pension entitlement
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of 5 October 2004 of the Council of the European Union rejecting Ms De Souten's request for early retirement without reduction of pension entitlement;

               2.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 296, 26.11.2005 (Case initially registered in the Court of First Instance of the European Communities under No T-336/05 and transferred to the European Union Civil Service Tribunal by order of 15.12.2005).


title: Case T-372/12: Judgment of the General Court of 4 February 2015  — El Corte Inglés v OHIM — Apro Tech (APRO) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark APRO — Earlier national figurative mark B-PRO by Boomerang, earlier Community word mark PRO MOUNTAIN and applications for earlier Community figurative and word marks B-PRO by Boomerang and PRO OUTDOOR — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               16.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/18

         Judgment of the General Court of 4 February 2015 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM — Apro Tech (APRO)
   (Case T-372/12) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark APRO - Earlier national figurative mark B-PRO by Boomerang, earlier Community word mark PRO MOUNTAIN and applications for earlier Community figurative and word marks B-PRO by Boomerang and PRO OUTDOOR - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 089/19)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E. Seijo Veiguela, J. Rivas Zurdo and I. Munilla Muñoz, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Geroulakos, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Apro Tech Co. Ltd (Tachia, Taiwan)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 May 2012 (Case R 196/2011-2), relating to opposition proceedings between El Corte Inglés, SA and Apro Tech Co. Ltd.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders El Corte Inglés, SA, to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 331, 27.10.2012.


title: Case T-269/07: Action brought on 19 July 2007 — Mediterráneo Algodón v Council and Commission

text:
               22.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/13

         Action brought on 19 July 2007 — Mediterráneo Algodón v Council and Commission
   (Case T-269/07)
   (2007/C 223/20)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Mediterráneo Algodón, SA (Sevilla, Spain) (represented by: L. Ortiz Blanco, lawyer)

      Defendants: Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               to uphold the present action for damages, in accordance with Article 288 EC, and declare the applicant is entitled to be financially compensated by the Council and the Commission jointly and severally in the sum total of three million two hundred and seventy-three thousand one hundred and forty-seven euros (EUR 3 273 147);

               —

               order the defendants to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and the main arguments are the same as those raised in Case T-217/07 Las Palmeras v Council and Commission.


title: Case T-189/03: Action brought on 2 June 2003 by ASM Brescia S.p.A. against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 184/46               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                           2.8.2003
—     annul the decision of the appointing authority of                   Action brought on 2 June 2003 by ASM Brescia S.p.A.
      17 February 2003, notified on 24 February 2003,                          against Commission of the European Communities
      dismissing the applicant's complaint of 9 October 2002;
                                                                                (Case T-189/03)
—     restore all the applicant's pecuniary rights;
                                                                                (2003/C 184/101)
—     order the defendant to pay default interest on sums owed
      to the applicant as education allowance for the school
      years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 and 2001-2002, that                                      (Language of the case: Italian)
      interest to run for the first two school years from 17 June
      2002 until the sums are paid in full; for the school year
      2001-2002 interest to run from 17 June 2002 to
      13 August 2002 for the first and second terms and                   An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
      from 8 March 2002 to 7 May 2002 for the third term.                 nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      The rate of default interest to apply must be calculated on         European Communities on 2 June 2003 by ASM Brescia S.p.
      the basis of the rate set by the European Central Bank for          A., represented by Fausto Capelli, Francesca Vitale and Massi-
      capital refinancing operations in force during the period           miliano Valcada, lawyers.
      concerned, increased by two percentage points;
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     order the defendant to pay one euro as compensation for
      the non-material damage suffered by the applicant;                  —     in substance, annul Article 2 of Commission Decision
                                                                                2003/193/EC of 5 June 2002, published in OJ 2003
                                                                                L 77, by which the European Commission declared
—     order the defendant to pay all the costs.
                                                                                incompatible with the common market the measures
                                                                                adopted by the Italian Republic under Article 2(70) of
                                                                                Law No 549 of 28 December 1995 and Article 66(14) of
                                                                                Decree Law No 331 of 30 August 1993, converted into
                                                                                Law No 427 of 29 October 1993 granting exemption
                                                                                from income tax to joint stock companies with majority
                                                                                public shareholdings set up in accordance with Law
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 No 142 of 8 June 1990;
                                                                          —     in substance, in the alternative, annul Article 3 of
The applicant's daughter was born in 1996 and began to                          Commission Decision 2003/193/EC of 5 June 2002,
attend the French Lycée in Brussels in September 1999.                          published in OJ 2003 L 11, by which the European
                                                                                Commission ordered the Italian Republic to recover
                                                                                granted to, inter alios, the applicant;
In support of her application the applicant relies, first, on
breach of Article 3 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations,                —     order the European Commission to pay the costs.
breach of Article 15 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations and
the Council Decision of 19 December 1998 laying down
general implementing provisions in respect of Annex X to the
Staff Regulations. She also complains that the Council took a
decision on grounds that are wrong in fact and law. The
applicant claims that despite the clear terms of the national             Pleas in law and main arguments
rules applicable to schooling and the replies given by the
French Government on those rules, the Council considered
that her daughter's schooling was not primary education.                  The applicant in the present action, the former azienda muni-
                                                                          cipalizzata (municipal undertaking) of Brescia is contesting the
                                                                          decision of the Commission of 5 June 2002 (1), in which it
The applicant further alleges that the principle of non-discri-           considered State aid the three-year exemption (1997 to 1999)
mination was infringed in that children registered at a French            from income tax, provided for by Italian legislation for former
educational establishment are not treated in the same way as              municipal undertakings which became companies with a
children registered in a Luxembourg, British or Dutch educa-              majority public shareholding and accordingly ordered recovery
tional establishment.                                                     of the appropriate amounts.
                                                                          In support of its claims, the applicant alleges the following:
Lastly the applicant alleges that the requirement to state
reasons and the fundamental right to a hearing have been
infringed. The applicant states that the Council did not take             —     in the contested decision, the defendant appears to have
account of the opinion of the French authorities and did not                    conducted its analysis while completely disregarding the
explain why they did not do so.                                                 special nature of the public utilities sector, namely that it
                                                                                ensures public provision of certain minimum services
                                                                                deemed to be of fundamental importance.
 ---pagebreak--- 2.8.2003                 EN                            Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 184/47
—     The contested decision does not take account of the fact                 Action brought on 21 May 2003 by Sanni Olesen against
      that, in the years concerned, in the public utilities sector                    the Commission of the European Communities
      there were a number of de jure and de facto monopolies
      such as to exclude a market open to competition. The
      Commission merely assumed, without putting forward                                                (Case T-190/03)
      any evidence, the presence of an open competitive
      market. In that regard, the Court should find that the
      Commission has failed to provide adequate reasons inas-                                          (2003/C 184/102)
      much as it has found competition to have been infringed
      on a single ground: the alleged damage suffered by those
      undertakings which are not beneficiaries of the measures                                    (Language of the Case: French)
      provided for by the legislation in question in the event
      that they should compete with the beneficiary undertak-
      ings for the same contracts.
                                                                               An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
                                                                               nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                               European Communities on 21 May 2003 by Sanni Olesen,
                                                                               resident in Brussels, represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Albert
—     Since the inquiry was opened only in so far as concerned                 Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers, with an
      exclusively the local public utilities market where it was               address for service in Luxembourg.
      assumed that there was open competition, the final deci-
      sion could not assess the impact of the measures on
      other markets which were not concerned by the decision
                                                                               The applicant claims that the Court should:
      to initiate the procedure. Finally, the measures in question
      cannot be deemed incompatible with the common market
      in so far as those undertakings could, in theory, have                   —     annul the Commission's decision of 19 April 2002 not to
      operated in a market other than that of local public                           grant her an expatriation allowance from her entry into
      utilities, which is the only one under formal investigation.                   service on 3 March 2002;
                                                                               —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
—     The provision which limits the ‘tax moratorium’ to only
      three years does not introduce any new State aid, rather it
      merely amends a tax regime which has been applicable to
      a defined category of taxpayer since 1925.
                                                                               Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                               The applicant in this case, a Grade A official with the
—     Should the Court find that this is a case of State aid, it               Commission, opposes the Commission's decision not to grant
      should, pursuant to Article 87(3)(c) of the Treaty, be                   her an expatriation allowance because she worked in Belgium
      declared compatible with the common market inasmuch                      from 15 June 1995. Since that date she has lived in Belgium
      as the measures are inherent in the nature and/or general                and has had her main occupation there, as a freelance lecturer
      structure of the system in question. Indeed, a change in                 for the Commission's Directorate-General for Education and
      the general system of local public utilities could not have              Culture and as representative in Brussels of the town of
      been successfully carried out if the undertakings which                  Odense (ODENSE KOMMUNE — Denmark).
      had to become companies with a majority public share-
      holding had not been afforded the chance to become
      gradually acquainted with the mechanisms which govern
                                                                               In support of her claims, the applicant pleads breach of
      private law.
                                                                               Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations. She
                                                                               submits in this connection that:
                                                                               —     the status of freelance lecturer, characterised by a direct
In its application, the applicant also alleges infringement of                       legal link between her and the institution, corresponds to
Article 86(2) of the Treaty inasmuch as it was held in the                           a situation arising from work done for an international
decision that that provision did not apply to the measures in                        organisation;
question.
                                                                               —     under their charters of autonomy, Danish towns may
 1
( ) Commission Decision 2003/193/EC of 5 June 2002 on State aid                      open representations abroad and consequently the appli-
    granted by Italy in the form of tax exemptions and subsidised loans              cant's occupation as representative of the town of Odense
    to public utilities with a majority public capital holding (OJ 2003              must be regarded as ‘work done for another State’,
    L 77, p. 21).                                                                    namely the Kingdom of Denmark.


title: Removal from the register of T-27/96

text:
No C 54/38          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    22 . 2 . 97
The applicant claims that, according to the case-law, the                   Removal from the register of T-27/96 (')
installation allowance provided for in Article 5 ( 1 ) and ( 2 )                               ( 97/C 54/63 )
of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations is in the nature of a
fixed allowance; that means that from the moment when                            (Language of the case: French)
an official shows, following a change in his place of
posting, that he has established himself in a new residence
he is entitled to the amount of the allowance without
                                                                   By order of 5 December 1996, the President of the First
                                                                   Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
having to prove that expenses were actually incurred or
the amount of those expenses . He considers that the               Communities ordered the removal from the register of
contested decision infringes that provision in that it finds
                                                                   Case T-27/96 : Boubeker Maayouchi v. Commission of the
                                                                   European Communities .
that he has not proved that expenses were actually
incurred upon his installation in Belgium. He contests,
                                                                   O OJ No C 133 , 4 . 5 . 1996 .
moreover, the alleged 'presumption of the absence of
expenses' which, according to the Commission, follows
from the mere fact that the flat which he occupied belongs
to his family, and states that such a presumption is not
laid down in any legislation and is discriminatory.
In the applicant's view, the defendant has abused its                       Removal from the register of T-88/96 (')
power and disregarded Article 110 of the Staff                                                 ( 97/C 54/64 )
Regulations in so far as, in order to justify the need for
proof of expenses, it refers to an 'agreement' on the                            (Language of the case: French)
interpretation of provisions concerning the award of the
installation allowance, which is apparently a general
provision for giving effect to the Staff Regulations and           By order of 16 January 1997, the President of the Second
adopted by the Commission in regard to this question .             Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Such a rule constitutes a restriction of the rights flowing        Communities ordered the removal from the register of
                                                                   Case T-88/96 :    Gisele       Lienard v.  Commission of the
from Article 5 of Annex VII and was adopted without
                                                                   European Communities.
observing the procedure laid down in that regard.
                                                                   (') OJ No C 233 , 10 . 8 . 1996 .


title: Case C-366/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt Dortmund-West v Klinikum Dortmund gGmbH (Request for a preliminary ruling  — Sixth VAT Directive  — Exemptions  — Article 13A(1)(b)  — Supply of goods  — Supply of cytostatic drugs for the treatment of outpatients  — Services provided by different taxable persons  — Article 13A(1)(c)  — Provision of medical care  — Drugs prescribed by a doctor working in an independent capacity in a hospital  — Closely related activities  — Services ancillary to the provision of medical care  — Activities physically and economically indissociable)

text:
               5.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 135/4

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt Dortmund-West v Klinikum Dortmund gGmbH
   (Case C-366/12) (1)

   ((Request for a preliminary ruling - Sixth VAT Directive - Exemptions - Article 13A(1)(b) - Supply of goods - Supply of cytostatic drugs for the treatment of outpatients - Services provided by different taxable persons - Article 13A(1)(c) - Provision of medical care - Drugs prescribed by a doctor working in an independent capacity in a hospital - Closely related activities - Services ancillary to the provision of medical care - Activities physically and economically indissociable))
   2014/C 135/04
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzhof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Finanzamt Dortmund-West

      Defendant: Klinikum Dortmund gGmbH

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of Article 13A(1)(b) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Concept of activities closely related to hospital and medical care — Activity not constituting a service within the meaning of Article 6 of the directive — Activity carried out by a taxable person other than the person who provides the hospital or medical care — Activity closely related to medical care which is not exempt.

      Operative part of the judgment

   A supply of goods, such as the cytostatic drugs at issue in the main proceedings, prescribed in the course of outpatient cancer treatment by doctors working in an independent capacity in a hospital, may not be exempt from value added tax under Article 13A(1)(c) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 2005/92/EC of 12 December 2005, unless that supply is physically and economically indissociable from the principal supply of medical care, which it is for the referring court to determine.

      (1)  OJ C 366, 24.11.2012.


title: Case C-74/04 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 July 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Volkswagen AG (Appeal — Competition — Article 81(1) EC — Distribution of motor vehicles — Meaning of agreements between undertakings — Proof of the existence of an agreement)

text:
               16.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/2

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 July 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Volkswagen AG
   (Case C-74/04 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Competition - Article 81(1) EC - Distribution of motor vehicles - Meaning of ‘agreements between undertakings’ - Proof of the existence of an agreement)
   (2006/C 224/03)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: W. Mölls, Agent, H.-J. Freund, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: Volkswagen AG (represented by: R. Bechtold and S. Hirsbrunner, Rechtsanwälte)
   Re:
   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 3 December 2003 in Case T-208/01 Volkswagen AG v Commission, annulling Commission Decision 2001/711/EC of 29 June 2001 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case COM P/F-2/36.693 — Volkswagen) (OJ 2001 L 262, p. 14) — Conduct of Volkswagen vis-à-vis its German dealers in connection with the marketing of the new ‘Volkswagen Passat Variant’ model
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court hereby:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 94, 17.4.2004.


title: Case C-36/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Second Chamber (Italy) lodged on 24 January 2011 — Pioneer HI-Bred Italia Srl v Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali

text:
               19.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Second Chamber (Italy) lodged on 24 January 2011 — Pioneer HI-Bred Italia Srl v Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali
   (Case C-36/11)
   2011/C 89/22
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato — Second Chamber

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Pioneer HI-Bred Italia Srl

      Defendant: Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali

      Question referred

   Where a Member State has chosen to make authorisation to cultivate GMOs, even those listed in the European common catalogue, conditional upon compliance with appropriate general measures for ensuring coexistence with conventional and organic farming, must Article 26a of Directive 2001/18/EC, (1) read in the light of Recommendation 2003/556/EC (2) and subsequent Recommendation [2010/C 200/01], (3) be interpreted as meaning that, in the period preceding adoption of the general measures: (a) authorisation must be issued where the application concerns GMOs listed in the European common catalogue; or (b) consideration of the application for authorisation must be suspended until such time as the general measures have been adopted; or (c) authorisation must be issued, but coupled with appropriate requirements for preventing, in the specific case, contact — including unintended contact — between authorised GM crops and surrounding conventional or organic crops?

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 106, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 2003 L 189, p. 36.

      (3)  OJ 2010 C 200, p. 1.


title: Case C-433/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landgericht KöIn by order of 10 November 2000 in the case of Aventis Pharma Deutschland GmbH v Kohlpharma GmbH and MTK Pharma Vertriebs GmbH

text:
C 45/6                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          10.2.2001
Application brought on 14 December 2000 by Cotecna                      2.    Do the so-called ‘simple’ cases of difference in the second
Inspection SA for leave to attach assets held by the                          sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 9(2) of the
         Commission of the European Communities                               regulation presuppose the making of a ‘false declaration’
                                                                              in the application itself, or is it simply a question of
                        (Case C-1/00 SA)                                      comparing the information given in the application with
                                                                              the result of the on-the-spot inspection?
                          (2001/C 45/11)
                                                                        (1) OJ 1992 L 391, p. 36.
An application for leave to attach assets held by the Com-
mission of the European Communities was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 14 December
2000 by Cotecna Inspection S.A., represented by Jacques
H.J. Bourgeois, of the Brussels Bar, of Messrs Akin, Gump,
Strauss, Hauer & Fedd, with an address for service in Luxem-            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landgericht
bourg at the Chambers of Messrs Arendt & Medernach, 8-10                KöIn by order of 10 November 2000 in the case of Aventis
Rue Mathias Hardt.                                                      Pharma Deutschland GmbH v Kohlpharma GmbH and
                                                                                MTK Pharma Vertriebs GmbH
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                       (Case C-433/00)
—     grant the applicant leave to attach assets held by the                                       (2001/C 45/13)
      Commission amounting to USD 2 265 550,63 together
      with interest at the legal rate in force in Djibouti from         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      28 January 2000, being the date of the arbitration award,         European Communities by order of 10 November 2000 by
      and USD 66 000,                                                   the Landgericht KöIn (Regional Court, Cologne) which was
                                                                        received at the Court Registry on 23 November 2000, for a
with a view to the enforcement of an arbitration award made             preliminary ruling in the case of Aventis Pharma Deutschland
against the State of Djibouti which has become enforceable              GmbH v Kohlpharma GmbH and MTK Pharma Vertriebs
pursuant to an order made the Tribunal de Première Instance,            GmbH on the following questions:
Brussels.
                                                                        1.    Do the provisions governing the central authorisation of
                                                                              medicinal products in the European Union — in particu-
                                                                              lar those of Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93 (1) — preclude
                                                                              the legal possibility of ‘bundling’ (that is to say, the joining
                                                                              together of several packages, each bearing the necessary
                                                                              labelling, in order to form a new retail unit) of packages
                                                                              of medicinal products following importation into one
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberverwal-                         Member State from another Member State, in such a way
tungsgericht des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt by order of that                       that ‘repackaging’ of medicinal products (that is to say,
court of 7 September 2000 in the case of Agrargenossen-                       the production of new external packaging to which
schaft Pretzsch e.G. against Amt für Landwirtschaft und                       the importer affixes the foreign trademark without the
                    Flurneuordnung Anhalt                                     authorisation of the trademark holder) is ‘necessary’
                                                                              within the meaning of the decision of the European Court
                         (Case C-417/00)                                      of Justice in Case C-232/94 MPA Pharma v Rhône-
                                                                              Poulenc Pharma (2) and the trademark holder for that
                                                                              reason cannot prohibit such repackaging?
                          (2001/C 45/12)
                                                                        2.    In the event that Question 1 should be answered in the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                        negative:
European Communities by order of the Oberverwaltungsge-
richt des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt (Higher Administrative Court                  Do the rules on the free movement of goods within the
for the Land Sachsen-Anhalt) of 7 September 2000, received                    Common Market or other rules of Community law stand
at the Court Registry on 13 November 2000, for a preliminary                  in the way of a prohibition which, in cases of the kind
ruling in the case of Agrargenossenschaft Pretzsch e.G. v                     referred to in Question 1, is directed against ‘repackaging’
Amt für Landwirtschaft und Flurneuordnung Anhalt on the                       on the ground, derived from national trademark law, that
following questions:                                                          the possibility of creating a bundle package, which,
                                                                              moreover, exists de facto and de jure, constitutes a less
                                                                              intrusive interference with the rights of the trademark
1.    On a proper interpretation of the third subparagraph of
                                                                              holder?
      Article 9(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92, (1) does
      ‘false declaration’ refer to a culpable positive act in the
      context of an application for aid, so that failure to report      (1) OJ 1993 L 214 of 24.8.1993, p. 1.
      to the granting authority changes which are relevant to           (2) [1996] ECR I-3671.
      the application but do not occur until afterwards is not
      penalised?


title: Case C-302/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 17 June 2011 — Rosanna Valenza v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/20

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 17 June 2011 — Rosanna Valenza v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato
   (Case C-302/11)
   2011/C 252/39
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Rosanna Valenza

      Defendant: Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato

      Question referred

               (a)

               Does Clause 4(4) of the Annex to Directive 1999/70/EC, (1) under which ‘[t]he period-of-service qualifications relating to particular conditions of employment shall be the same for fixed-term workers as for permanent workers except where different length-of-service qualifications are justified on objective grounds’, read in conjunction with Clause 5 thereof, as interpreted by the Court of Justice to the effect that the Italian rules which prohibit, in the context of the public service, the conversion of a fixed-term contract into a contract of unlimited duration are lawful, preclude the national rules on employment stabilisation for workers in precarious employment (Article 1(519) of Law No 296/2006), under which it is possible, in derogation from the rule requiring a public selection procedure, to recruit directly, under contracts of unlimited duration, workers who have already been recruited on fixed-term contracts but with the length of service accrued under those fixed-term contracts being set at nought; or does the loss of length of service, as provided for by the national legislature, fall within the ambit of the derogation relating to ‘objective grounds’, given the need to prevent workers in precarious employment from being admitted to the permanent staff to the detriment of workers already on the permanent staff, which would be the position if it were possible for workers in precarious employment to have the length of service accrued taken into account?

               (b)

               Does Clause 4(4) of the Annex to Directive 1999/70/EC, under which ‘[t]he period-of-service qualifications relating to particular conditions of employment shall be the same for fixed-term workers as for permanent workers except where different length-of-service qualifications are justified on objective grounds’, read in conjunction with Clause 5 thereof, as interpreted by the Court of Justice to the effect that the Italian rules which prohibit, in the context of the public service, the conversion of a fixed-term contract into a contract of unlimited duration are lawful, preclude the national rules under which, without prejudice to the accrual of length of service for the period of the fixed-term contract, the fixed-term contract is to be terminated and a new contract of unlimited duration established, which is different from the previous contract and under which the length of service accrued is not to be maintained (Article 1(519) of Law No 296/2006)?

      (1)  OJ L 175, p. 43.


title: Case T-88/16: Action brought on 26 February 2016 — Opko Ireland Global Holdings v EUIPO — Teva Pharmaceutical Industries (ALPHAREN)

text:
               18.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 136/41

         Action brought on 26 February 2016 — Opko Ireland Global Holdings v EUIPO — Teva Pharmaceutical Industries (ALPHAREN)
   (Case T-88/16)
   (2016/C 136/57)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Opko Ireland Global Holdings Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, A. Smith and D. Meale, Solicitors)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd (Jerusalem, Israel)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘ALPHAREN’ — Application for registration No 4 320 297

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 December 2015 in Case R 2387/2014-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay its own costs and those of the applicant.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 1(d)(2) of Regulation No 216/96 in that two members of the Board who took the original 2014 Board of Appeal decision (and the June 2015 Board of Appeal revocation decision) were also members of the Board that took the contested decision;

               —

               Infringement of Article 50 of the Implementing Regulation by relying upon new evidence not before EUIPO at the first hearing of the opposition;

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 by failing to impose the burden of proof in the opposition to prove the similarity of the goods in issue upon the opponent;

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 in that the Board of Appeal erred in relation to the identification of the relevant public and overall in the assessment of the likelihood of confusion.


title: Case T-396/05 R: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of  10 January 2006  — ArchiMEDES v Commission (Interim proceedings — Application for interim measures — Arbitration clause — Admissibility — Urgency — Absence)

text:
               8.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/29

         Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 10 January 2006 — ArchiMEDES v Commission
   (Case T-396/05 R)
   (Interim proceedings - Application for interim measures - Arbitration clause - Admissibility - Urgency - Absence)
   (2006/C 86/58)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Architecture, microclimat, energies douces — Europe et Sud (ArchiMEDES) SARL (Ganges, France) (represented by: P.-P. Van Gehuchten, J. Sambon and P. Reyniers, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: K. Kańska and E. Manhaeve, Agents)
   Application for
   Suspension of the operation, firstly, of the Commission's decision contained in its letter of 5 October 2005 to offset debts to the detriment of the applicant; secondly, of the Commission's decision contained in its letter of 30 August 2005 and, thirdly, of the debit note of 23 August 2005, No 3240705638
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed;

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


23 . 9 . 95             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 248/ 13
      16 of the EEC Treaty ), the prohibition of discrimination         Kingdom of Spain v. Commission of the European
      ( Article 95 of the EEC Treaty) and other provisions of           Communities .
      Community law to make the exporter bear the full costs
      under national law of regular or occasional analyses ?            (') OJ No C 103 , 11 . 4 . 1994 .
(>) OJ No L 180 , 6 . 7 . 1976 , p . 9 .
(2 ) OJ No L 199 , 7. 8 . 1979 , p . 10 .
( 3 ) OJ No L 199 , 7. 8 . 1979 , p . 1 .                                        Removal from the register of Case C-95/94 ( J )
                                                                                ( 95/C 248/29 )
                                                                        By order of 1 1 July 1995 the President of the Sixth Chamber
                                                                        of the Court of Justice of the European Communities
        Removal from the register of Case C-l 80/94 ( )                 ordered the removal from the register of Case C-95/94 :
                            ( 95/C 248 /26 )                            Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of
                                                                        Spain.
By order of 12 June 1995 the President of the Sixth Chamber
of the Court of Justice of the European Communities                     (') OJ No C 161 , 11 . 6 . 1994 .
ordered the removal from the register of Case C-l 80/94 :
Commission of the European Communities v. Hellenic
Republic .
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-471/93
 (') OJ No C 233 , 20 . 8 . 1994 .                                                              and Case C-47/94 (M
                                                                                ( 95/C 248 /30 )
                                                                        By order of 1 4 July 1995 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                        of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
         Removal from the register of Case C-67/92 (*)                  register of Case C-471 /93 and Case C-47/94 : United
                            ( 95/C 248/27 )                             Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v.
                                                                        Commission of the European Communities, supported by
 By order of 30 June 1995 the President of the Court of                 the Kingdom of Spain, the Italian Republic and the Hellenic
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                 Republic .
 from the register of Case C-67/92 ( reference for a
 preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Grande Instance                 (') OJ No C 43 , 12 . 2 . 1994 and
 de Rennes): Societe l'Hexagone v. Societe des Auteurs,                        OJ No C 90 , 26 . 3 . 1994 .
 Compositeurs et Editeurs de Musique ( SACEM ).
 O OJ No C 86 , 7. 4 . 1992 .
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-154/94 ( )
                                                                                95/C 248/31
                                                                         By order of 14 July 1995 the President of the Court of Justice
         Removal from the register of Case C-53/94 ( )                   of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
                             ( 95/C 248/28 )                             register of Case C-154/94 ( reference for a preliminary
                                                                         ruling from the Sozialgericht Berlin ): Bahar Kockaya v.
  By order of 1 1 July 1 995 the President of the Fifth Chamber          Bundesanstalt fiir Arbeit.
  of the Court of Justice of the European Communities
  ordered the removal from the register of Case C-53/94 :                t 1 ) OJ No C 218 , 6 . 8 . 1994 .


title: Case T-311/09 P: Order of the General Court of 13 December 2011 — Marcuccio v Commission (Appeal — Civil Service — Officials — Social security — Reimbursement of medical expenses — Decision of the Commission refusing 100 % reimbursement of certain medical expenses incurred by the applicant — Distortion — Duty to state reasons — Investigation — Act adversely affecting the appellant — Authority of res judicata — Lis pendens — Confirmatory act)

text:
               18.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 49/23

         Order of the General Court of 13 December 2011 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case T-311/09 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Civil Service - Officials - Social security - Reimbursement of medical expenses - Decision of the Commission refusing 100 % reimbursement of certain medical expenses incurred by the applicant - Distortion - Duty to state reasons - Investigation - Act adversely affecting the appellant - Authority of res judicata - Lis pendens - Confirmatory act)
   2012/C 49/41
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

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

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser, acting as Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Re:

   Appeal against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) delivered on 20 May 2009 in Case F-73/08 Marcuccio v Commission seeking the annulment of that order

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Luigi Marcuccio shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission at the present instance.

      (1)  OJ C 233, 26.9.2009.


title: Case C-527/10: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Legfelsőbb Bíróság — Hungary) — ERSTE Bank Hungary Nyrt v Magyar Állam, BCL Trading GmbH, ERSTE Befektetési Zrt (Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Insolvency proceedings — Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 — Article 5(1) — Temporal application — Action in rem brought in a State not a member of the European Union — Insolvency proceedings opened against the debtor in another Member State — First State became a member of the European Union — Applicability)

text:
               22.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/4

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Legfelsőbb Bíróság — Hungary) — ERSTE Bank Hungary Nyrt v Magyar Állam, BCL Trading GmbH, ERSTE Befektetési Zrt
   (Case C-527/10) (1)

   (Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Insolvency proceedings - Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 - Article 5(1) - Temporal application - Action in rem brought in a State not a member of the European Union - Insolvency proceedings opened against the debtor in another Member State - First State became a member of the European Union - Applicability)
   2012/C 287/06
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Legfelsőbb Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: ERSTE Bank Hungary Nyrt

      Defendant: Magyar Állam, BCL Trading GmbH, ERSTE Befektetési Zrt

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Legfelsőbb Bíróság — Interpretation of Article 5(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings (OJ 2000 L 160, p. 1) — Action in rem brought in the Member State where the subject of the right in rem is situated against a defendant with its registered office in another Member State and against which insolvency proceedings were commenced in that latter State before the accession of the former State to the European Union — Temporal applicability of Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 5(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that that provision is applicable, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, even to insolvency proceedings opened before the accession of the Republic of Hungary to the European Union where, on 1 May 2004, the debtor’s assets on which the right in rem concerned was based were situated in that State, which is for the referring court to ascertain.

      (1)  OJ C 30, 29.1.2011.


title: Case T-572/11 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 17 February 2012 — Hassan v Council (Interim measures — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Syria — Freezing of funds and economic resources — Application for interim measures — Lack of urgency — Weighing up of interests)

text:
               14.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 109/13

         Order of the President of the General Court of 17 February 2012 — Hassan v Council
   (Case T-572/11 R)
   (Interim measures - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Syria - Freezing of funds and economic resources - Application for interim measures - Lack of urgency - Weighing up of interests)
   2012/C 109/29
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Samir Hassan (Damas, Syria) (represented by: É. Morgan de Rivery and E. Lagathu, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Kyriakopoulou and M. Vitsentzatos, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for interim measures, in particular, application for suspension of operation of Council Implementing Decision 2011/515/CFSP of 23 August 2011 implementing Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2011 L 218, p. 20) and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 843/2011 of 23 August 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2011 L 218, p. 1) insofar as those texts refer to the applicant.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case C-282/09 P: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 March 2010 — Caisse fédérale du Crédit mutuel Centre Est Europe (CFCMCEE) v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) — Refusal to register — Overall assessment with regard to the goods and services referred to in the application for registration — Goods and services constitute homogeneous groups — Appeal in part manifestly unfounded and in part manifestly inadmissible)

text:
               5.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/11

         Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 March 2010 — Caisse fédérale du Crédit mutuel Centre Est Europe (CFCMCEE) v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-282/09 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) - Refusal to register - Overall assessment with regard to the goods and services referred to in the application for registration - Goods and services constitute homogeneous groups - Appeal in part manifestly unfounded and in part manifestly inadmissible)
   2010/C 148/17
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Caisse fédérale du Crédit mutuel Centre Est Europe (CFCMCEE) (represented by: P. Greffe and L. Paudrat, avocats)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 20 May 2009 in Joined Cases T-405/07 and T-406/07 CFCMCEE v OHIM, by which the Court dismissed the actions brought by the appellant against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 July and 12 September 2007, dismissing its actions against the examiner’s refusal to register as trade marks of the word signs PAYWEB CARD and P@YWEB CARD for the goods and services within Classes 9, 36 and 38 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957 — Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and Article 73 of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1) — Need for a separate examination of each of the grounds of refusal to register set out in Article 7(1) of that regulation — The requirement of reasons for the refusal to register with regard to each of the goods and services referred to in the application for registration — Goods and services constitute homogeneous groups

      Operative part of the order

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders the Caisse fédérale du Crédit mutuel Centre Est Europe (CFCMCEE) to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 233, 26.9.2009.


title: Case T-341/11: Order of the General Court of 23 March 2012 — Ecologistas en Acción v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Implied refusal of access — Interest in bringing proceedings — Express decision adopted after the bringing of the action — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               26.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/29

         Order of the General Court of 23 March 2012 — Ecologistas en Acción v Commission
   (Case T-341/11) (1)

   (Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Implied refusal of access - Interest in bringing proceedings - Express decision adopted after the bringing of the action - No need to adjudicate)
   2012/C 151/48
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Ecologistas en Acción-CODA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Doreste Hernández, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: I. Martínez del Peral and P. Costa de Oliveira, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented initially by: M. Muñoz Pérez and J.M. Rodriguez Cârcamo, lawyers, thereafter by S. Centeno Huerta, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the Commission’s implied decision refusing the applicant access to certain documents concerning the approval of the project for the construction of a port in Granadilla (Tenerife, Spain) supplied by the Spanish authorities to the Commission pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               The European Commission is ordered to pay its own costs and those incurred by Ecologistas en Acción-CODA.

               3.

               The Kingdom of Spain shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 252, 27.8.2011.


title: Case C-460/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove (Slovakia) lodged on 15 October 2012 — SKP v Ján Bríla

text:
               16.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove (Slovakia) lodged on 15 October 2012 — SKP v Ján Bríla
   (Case C-460/12)
   2013/C 46/20
   Language of the case: Slovak

      Referring court

   Krajský súd v Prešove

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: SKP, k.s.

      Respondent: Ján Bríla

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are Article 38 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts to be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in this case, preventing a national court, when adjudicating, on the application of a supplier, on a time-barred claim against a consumer from taking limitation of the action into account of its own motion, even when unfair contract terms are being enforced against the consumer?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question is in the negative, are Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts to be interpreted as meaning that the court must, of its own motion, advise the consumer as to his right to argue that the creditor’s claim is time-barred?

      (1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29


title: Case T-510/15: Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2017 — Mengozzi v EUIPO — Consorzio per la tutela dell’olio extravergine di oliva Toscano (TOSCORO) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark TOSCORO — Earlier protected geographical indication ‘Toscano’ — Absolute ground for refusal — Article 142 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Articles 13 and 14 of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 — Declaration of partial invalidity)

text:
               13.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/26

         Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2017 — Mengozzi v EUIPO — Consorzio per la tutela dell’olio extravergine di oliva Toscano (TOSCORO)
   (Case T-510/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark TOSCORO - Earlier protected geographical indication ‘Toscano’ - Absolute ground for refusal - Article 142 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Articles 13 and 14 of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 - Declaration of partial invalidity))
   (2017/C 078/34)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Roberto Mengozzi (Monaco, Monaco) (represented by: T. Schuffenecker, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Schifko and S. Crabbe, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Consorzio per la tutela dell’olio extravergine di oliva Toscano IGP (Florence, Italy) (represented by: F. Albisinni, lawyer)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, Agent)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 June 2015 (Case R 322/2014-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Consorzio per la tutela dell’olio extravergine di oliva Toscano IGP and Mr Mengozzi.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Roberto Mengozzi to pay, in addition to his own costs, the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Consorzio per la tutela dell’olio extravergine di oliva Toscano IGP;

               3.

               Orders the Italian Republic to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 354, 26.10.2015.


title: Case C-189/13: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 July 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Bayonne — France) — Préfet des Pyrénées-Atlantiques v Raquel Gianni da Silva (Area of freedom, security and justice — Directive 2008/115/EC — Common standards and procedures for returning illegally staying third-country nationals — National legislation making provision for a sentence of imprisonment in the event of unlawful entry in flagrante delicto — Response from the Court no longer necessary to resolve the dispute — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               1.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 292/8

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 July 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Bayonne — France) — Préfet des Pyrénées-Atlantiques v Raquel Gianni da Silva
   (Case C-189/13) (1)

   ((Area of freedom, security and justice - Directive 2008/115/EC - Common standards and procedures for returning illegally staying third-country nationals - National legislation making provision for a sentence of imprisonment in the event of unlawful entry in flagrante delicto - Response from the Court no longer necessary to resolve the dispute - No need to adjudicate))
   2014/C 292/10
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal de grande instance de Bayonne

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Préfet des Pyrénées-Atlantiques

      Defendant: Raquel Gianni da Silva

      Operative part of the judgment

   There is no need to reply to the request for a preliminary ruling made by the juge des libertés et de la détention (liberty and custody judge) of the Tribunal de grande instance de Bayonne (France), by decision of 9 April 2013 (Case C-189/13).

      (1)  OJ C 164, 8.6.2013


title: Case C-628/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzgericht (Austria) lodged on 5 December 2016 — Kreuzmayr GmbH

text:
               27.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/4

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzgericht (Austria) lodged on 5 December 2016 — Kreuzmayr GmbH
   (Case C-628/16)
   (2017/C 095/10)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Kreuzmayr GmbH

      Questions referred

   Question 1:
   In circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, in which a taxable person X1 has at its disposal goods stored in Member State A and has sold those goods to a taxable person X2, and X2 has expressed to X1 its intention to transport the goods to Member State B, and X2 has presented to X1 its VAT identification number issued by Member State B,
   and X2 has sold those goods on to a taxable person X3 and X2 has agreed with X3 that X3 will arrange or carry out the transport of the goods from Member State A to Member State B and X3 has arranged or carried out the transport of the goods from Member State A to Member State B and X3 was already entitled to dispose of the goods as owner in Member State A,
   and X2 has not, however, informed X1 that he has already sold on the goods before they leave Member State A,
   and X1 also could not know that X2 would not be arranging or carrying out the transport of the goods from Member State A to Member State B,
   is EU law to be interpreted as meaning that the place of supply from X1 to X2 is determined in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 32 of Directive 2006/112/EC (1) and that the supply from X1 to X2 is thus the intra-Community (the so-called ‘active’) supply (bewegte Lieferung)?
   Question 2:
   If Question 1 must be answered in the negative, is EU law then to be interpreted as meaning that X3 may nevertheless deduct as input VAT an amount of VAT of Member State B invoiced to it by X2, provided that X3 uses the goods purchased for purposes of its transactions taxed in Member State B and no wrongful exercise of the right of deduction of input VAT can be imputed to X3?
   Question 3:
   If Question 1 must be answered in the affirmative and X1 subsequently learns that X3 has arranged the transport and was already entitled to dispose of the goods as owner in Member State A, is EU law then to be interpreted as meaning that the supply from X1 to X2 retrospectively loses its status as the intra-Community supply (that it is thus to be viewed retrospectively as a so-called ‘passive’ supply (ruhende Lieferung))?

      (1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: Case T-527/10: Order of the General Court of 16 December 2011 — Google v OHIM — G-mail (GMail) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               28.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 227/20

         Order of the General Court of 16 December 2011 — Google v OHIM — G-mail (GMail)
   (Case T-527/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate)
   2012/C 227/32
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Google, Inc. (Wilmington, United States) (represented by: M. Kinkeldey and A. Bognár, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: D. Botis, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: G-mail GmbH (Los Angeles, United States) (represented by: S. Eble, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 September 2010 (Case R 342/2010-4) in relation to opposition proceedings between Giersch Ventures LLC and Google, Inc.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               The applicant and the intervener shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of those incurred by the defendant.

      (1)  OJ C 30, 29.1.2011.


title: Case T-36/07: Action brought on 12 February 2007 — Zipcar v OHIM — Canary Islands Car (ZIPCAR)

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/44

         Action brought on 12 February 2007 — Zipcar v OHIM — Canary Islands Car (ZIPCAR)
   (Case T-36/07)
   (2007/C 82/94)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Zipcar, Inc. (Cambridge, USA) (represented by: M. Elmslie, Solicitor, and N. Saunders, Barrister)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Canary Islands Car SL (Lanzarote, Spain)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal dated 30 November 2006 in its entirety and remit the application to the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to allow it to proceed;

               —

               order that the Office pay the applicant's costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ZIPCAR ’for goods and services in classes 9, 39 and 42 — application No 3 139 375

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Canary Islands Car SL

      Mark or sign cited: The national word mark ‘CICAR ’for services in class 39

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in relation to the contested services in class 39

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Violation of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as there was no likelihood of confusion and the Board of Appeal failed to reach proper conclusions about both the nature of the average consumer of the relevant services and the nature of the relevant market.


title: Case C-447/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 December 2013 — Caffaro Srl, placed under special administration v European Commission (Appeal — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Calculation of the fine — Duration of the infringement — Limitation period — Mitigating circumstances)

text:
               15.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/4

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 December 2013 — Caffaro Srl, placed under special administration v European Commission
   (Case C-447/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Calculation of the fine - Duration of the infringement - Limitation period - Mitigating circumstances)
   2014/C 45/07
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Caffaro Srl, placed under special administration (represented by: C. Biscaretti di Ruffia and E. Gambaro, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: Di Bucci, L Malferrari, R. Striani and B. Gencarelli, agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 16 June 2011 in Case T-192/06 Caffaro v Commission by which the Court dismissed the action for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 1766 final of 3 May 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.620 — Hydrogen peroxide and perborate) in so far as in it the Commission imposes a joint and several fine on the applicant and SNIA SpA, or a reduction of the fine — Fines — Equal treatment — Limitation period — Obligation to state reasons.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Caffaro Srl, placed under special administration, to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 311, 22.10.2011.


title: Case T-492/10: Judgment of the General Court of 20 February 2013 — Melli Bank v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Entity wholly owned by an entity identified as being involved in nuclear proliferation — Plea of illegality — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Right to effective judicial protection)

text:
               6.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 101/17

         Judgment of the General Court of 20 February 2013 — Melli Bank v Council
   (Case T-492/10) (1)

   (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Entity wholly owned by an entity identified as being involved in nuclear proliferation - Plea of illegality - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection)
   2013/C 101/36
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Melli Bank plc (London, United Kingdom) (represented: initially by S. Gadhia and S. Ashley, Solicitors, and by D. Anderson QC and R. Blakeley, Barrister, and subsequently by S. Ashley, S. Jeffrey, and A. Irvine, Solicitors, and by D. Wyatt QC and R. Blakeley)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and R. Liudvinaviciute-Cordeiro, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Boelaert and M. Konstantinidis, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39), Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010 amending Decision 2010/413 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 81), Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 1), Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413 (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 71), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation No 961/2010 (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11), and Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1) in so far as those measures concern the applicant and, further, an application for a declaration of the inapplicability of Article 16(2)(a) of Regulation No 961/2010 and Article 23(2) of Regulation No 267/2012 to the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Melli Bank plc to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of the Council of the European Union;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 328, 4.12.2010.


title: Case T-809/14: Action brought on 12 December 2014  — Italy v Commission

text:
               9.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/59

         Action brought on 12 December 2014 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-809/14)
   (2015/C 046/77)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato, and G. Palmieri, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Note HR.A 2 of 2 October 2014 sent by the European Commission’s Director-General for Human Resources to the Director-General for the European Union of the Italian Republic’s Ministry for Foreign Affairs;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present action is brought against the note mentioned above, which follows the vacancy notice for the post of Director of the Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union (Luxembourg) (COM/2014/10356) — previously contested in Case T-636/14 — and which takes a position on the supposed difference between the notice in question and the form on the Commission’s website through which applications may be submitted, which limits the languages in which such submissions may be made to English, French and German.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 18 TFEU and the fourth paragraph of Article 24 TFEU, Article 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Articles 1 and 2 of Council Regulation No 1 of 15 April 1958 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community, and Article 1d(1) and (6) of the Staff Regulations, in so far as the notice, by its reference to the Commission’s website, which set out the binding provision mentioned above, made it compulsory for applicants to submit their CV and supporting letter in English, French or German, rather than allowing them to submit those documents in any one of the languages of the European Union. According to the applicant, in order to compensate for those defects, the Commission should have edited the website and extended the deadline for submitting applications.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a failure to observe the principles of legitimate expectations and sincere cooperation (Article 4(3) TEU), in so far as the Commission had formally assured the Italian Government several times during the process for adopting the notice that the language discrimination mentioned above would be removed, but instead acted in the opposite manner when drafting that notice and preparing the rules for the functioning of the website to which the notice refers those wishing to submit applications.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging a failure to state reasons, in so far as the decision should have been adopted by the Commission through the President or the competent Commissioner, and not by the Director-General for Human Resources.


title: Case T-486/17: Action brought on 2 August 2017 — Foodterapia v EUIPO — Cloetta Italia (DIETOX)

text:
               25.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 318/20

         Action brought on 2 August 2017 — Foodterapia v EUIPO — Cloetta Italia (DIETOX)
   (Case T-486/17)
   (2017/C 318/26)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Foodterapia, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Erdozain López and J. Galán López, 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 of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘DIETOX’ — Application for registration No 13 072 798

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 May 2017 in Case R 1611/2016-5

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


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber) of 15 April 1997 in Case C-272/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht): Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung v. Deutsches Milch-Kontor GmbH (Aid for skimmed-milk powder - Systematic inspections - Costs of inspections)

text:
31 . 5 . 97            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 166/3
2 . The competent veterinary authority of the Member                   1 . Article 2 (1 ) and (4) of Commission Regulation (EEC)
      State of origin may, under Council Directive 89/608/                  No 1624/76 of 2 July 1976 concerning special
      EEC of 21 November 1989 on mutual assistance                          arrangements for the payment of aid for skimmed
      between the administrative authorities of the Member                  milk powder denatured or processed into compound
      States and cooperation between the latter and the                     feedingstuffs in the territory of another Member State,
      Commission to ensure the correct application of                       as amended by Article 1 of Commission Regulation
      legislation on veterinary and zootechnical matters,                   (EEC) No 1726/79 of 26 July 1979, and Article 10 of
      seek the assistance of the competent veterinary                       Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1725/79 of 26 July
      authority of the Member State of importation, without                 1979 on the rules for granting aid to skimmed milk
      such a request affecting the right of the official                    processed into compound feedingstuffs and skimmed
      veterinarian in the Member State of origin to                         milk powder intended for feed for calves, in
      designate, for the purposes of the heat treatment to be               conjunction with Article 34 of the EC Treaty, preclude
      carried out, an establishment in the Member State of                  systematic inspections to verify compliance with the
      importation.                                                          conditions as to the composition and quality of
                                                                            skimmed-milk powder intended for processing into
O OJNoC 159,24 . 6 . 1995 .                                                 compound feedingstuffs in another Member State on
                                                                            which entitlement to export refunds depends, where
                                                                            those inspections are carried out, with a view to
                                                                            subsequent export of the goods inspected, inside the
                                                                            exporting State and not at the frontier. However, those
                                                                            provisions do not preclude such inspections if they are
                                                                            carried out only by means of spot checks.
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        ( Fourth Chamber)
                                                                       2 . A charge levied in respect of systematic inspections
                          of 15 April 1997                                  carried out inside the exporting State with a view to
in Case C-272/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                   subsequent export of the goods inspected constitutes a
the Bundesverwaltungsgericht ): Bundesanstalt für Land                     charge having an effect equivalent to customs duties
wirtschaft und Ernährung v. Deutsches Milch-Kontor                          on exports, prohibited under Articles 9 and 12 of the
                               GmbH (M                                      EC Treaty, even if it corresponds to the actual cost of
                                                                            each inspection.
 (Aid for skimmed-milk powder — Systematic inspections
                     — Costs of inspections)
                                                                       O OJ No C 248 , 23 . 9 . 1995 .
                            ( 97/C 166/04 )
                 (Language of the case: German)
    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
           published in the European Court Reports)                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( Sixth Chamber)
In Case C-272/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177                                    of 15 April 1997
 of the EC Treaty from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht
 ( Federal Administrative Court) for a preliminary ruling in           in Case C-292/95 : Kingdom of Spain v. Commission of
 the proceedings pending before that court between                                      the European Communities ( ] )
 Bundesanstalt fur Landwirtschaft und Ernahrung and                     (Action for annulment — Framework on State aid to the
 Deutsches Milch-Kontor GmbH — on the interpretation                   motor vehicle industry — Retroactive prolongation —
 of Article 2 ( 1 ) and (4 ) of Commission Regulation ( EEC )                          Article 93 (1 ) of the EC Treaty)
 No 1624/76 of 2 July 1976 concerning special
                                                                                ( 97/C 166/05 )
 arrangements for the payment of aid for skimmed-milk
 powder denatured or processed into compound
 feedingstuffs in the territory of another Member State ( OJ                           (Language of the case: Spanish)
 No L 180, 1976 , p. 9 ), as amended by Article 1 of
 Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 1726/79 of 26 July                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
  1979 ( OJ No L 199 , 1979 , p. 10 ), on the interpretation of
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
 Article 10 of Commission Regulation (EEC ) No 1725/79
  of 26 July 1979 on the rules for granting aid to skimmed
  milk processed into compound feedingstuffs and skimmed               In Case C-292/95 : Kingdom of Spain (Agents : Alberto
  milk powder intended for feed for calves ( OJ No L 199,               Navarro Gonzalez and Miguel Bravo-Ferrer Delgado ) v.
  1979 , p. 1 ) and on the interpretation of Articles 9, 12, 16         Commission of the European Communities ( Agents :
  and 95 of the EC Treaty — the Court ( Fourth Chamber),                Gerard Rozet and Francisco Enrique Gonzalez Diaz ) —
  composed of: J. L. Murray, President of the Chamber                   application for annulment of the Commission's decision,
  ( Rapporteur), C. N. Kakouris and P. J. G. Kapteyn,                   notified by letter of 6 July 1995 and published in the
 Judges; R Leger, Advocate-General; H. A. Riihl, Principal              Official Journal of the European Communities ( OJ No
  Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on             C 284, 1995 , p. 3 ), to prolong, with retroactive effect
  15 April 1997, in which it has ruled:                                 from 1 January 1995 , its decision of 23 December 1992


               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/2

      Election of the President of the General Court
      (2010/C 288/02)
      On 13 September 2010, the Judges of the General Court, in accordance with the provisions of Article 7 of the Rules of Procedure, elected Mr Marc Jaeger President of the General Court for the period from 13 September 2010 to 31 August 2013.


title: Case T-431/04: Action brought on 19 October 2004 by the Italian Republic against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               18.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 314/26

         Action brought on 19 October 2004 by the Italian Republic against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-431/04)
   (2004/C 314/61)
   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 19 October 2004 by the Italian Republic, represented by Maurizio Fiorilli, Avvocato dello Stato.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the explanatory note to point 103 of Annex I to Commission Regulation No 1429/2004, relating to the fact that the name ‘Tocai friulano’ may be used only until 31 March 2007.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those put forward in Case T-417/04 Regione Autonoma del Friuli Venezia Giulia v Commission (1).

      (1)  Not yet published in the OJ.


title: Case T-58/08 P: Appeal brought on 8 February 2008 by Commission of the European Communities against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 27 November 2007 in Case F-122/06, Roodhuijzen v Commission

text:
               12.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 92/38

         Appeal brought on 8 February 2008 by Commission of the European Communities against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 27 November 2007 in Case F-122/06, Roodhuijzen v Commission

   (Case T-58/08 P)
   (2008/C 92/77)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by J. Currall and D. Martin, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: Anton Pieter Roodhuijzen (Luxembourg, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg)
   Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               Annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 27 November 2007 in Case F-122/06 Roodhuijzen v Commission;

               —

               dismiss the action brought by Mr Roodhuijzen;

               —

               order that each party shall bear its own costs of the present appeal and of the action before the Court of First Instance.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By the present appeal, the Commission seeks annulment of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 27 November 2007 in Case F-122/06 Roodhuijzen v Commission, which annuls the decision of the Commission refusing to recognise the non-marital partnership of the applicant as regards the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme of the European Communities.
   In support of its appeal, the Commission raises three pleas in law seeking annulment.
   By its first plea, the Commission submits that the CST ruled ultra vires in breach of Article 1(2) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations and in breach of the principle of non-discrimination, in that it rejected the appellant's argument relating thereto and substituted its own without, however, permitting the Commission to respond thereto, accordingly failing to respect the rights of the defence.
   The second plea alleges an error of law in the interpretation of the notion of ‘partnership’ as contained in Article 1(2) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, entitling the partner of an official to be covered by the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme.
   The third plea, raised in the alternative, alleges incorrect interpretation of the principle of non-discrimination.