title: Case T-458/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 September 2009 — Dominio de la Vega v OHIM — Ambrosio Velasco (DOMINIO DE LA VEGA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark DOMINIO DE LA VEGA — Earlier Community figurative mark PALACIO DE LA VEGA — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/61

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 September 2009 — Dominio de la Vega v OHIM — Ambrosio Velasco (DOMINIO DE LA VEGA)
   (Case T-458/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark DOMINIO DE LA VEGA - Earlier Community figurative mark PALACIO DE LA VEGA - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2009/C 267/108
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Dominio de la Vega, SL (Requena, Spain) (represented by: E. Caballero Oliver and A. Sanz-Bernell y Martinéz, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Ambrosio Velasco, SA (Dicastillo, Spain) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri and A. Castán Pérez-Gómez, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 October 2007 (Case R 1431/2006-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Ambrosio Velasco, SA and Dominio de la Vega, SL.

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Dominio de la Vega, SL is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 51, 23.2.2008.


title: Case T-438/11: Judgment of the General Court of 9 December 2014  — BelTechExport v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted against Belarus — Freezing of funds — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Right to be heard)

text:
               2.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 34/27

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 December 2014 — BelTechExport v Council
   (Case T-438/11) (1)

   ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted against Belarus - Freezing of funds - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Right to be heard))
   (2015/C 034/31)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: BelTechExport ZAO (Minsk, Belarus) (represented by: V. Vaitkutė Pavan, A. Smaliukas, E. Matulionyte, T. Milašauskas, lawyers, and M. Shenk, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and F. Naert, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Scharf and E. Paasivirta, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Council Decision 2011/357/CFSP of 20 June 2011 amending Decision 2010/639/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against certain officials of Belarus (OJ 2011 L 161, p. 25), Council Regulation (EU) No 588/2011 of 20 June 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures against President Lukashenko and certain officials of Belarus (OJ 2011 L 161, p. 1), Council Decision 2011/666/CFSP of 10 October 2011 amending Decision 2010/639/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus (OJ 2011 L 265, p. 17), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1000/2011 of 10 October 2011 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ 2011 L 265, p. 8), Council Decision 2012/642/CFSP of 15 October 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Belarus (OJ 2012 L 285, p. 1), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1017/2012 of 6 November 2012 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ 2012 L 307, p. 7), Council Decision 2013/534/CFSP of 29 October 2013 amending Decision 2012/642 (OJ 2013 L 288, p. 69), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1054/2013 of 29 October 2013 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ 2013 L 288, p. 1), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Annuls Council Decision 2011/357/CFSP of 20 June 2011, amending Decision 2010/639/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against certain officials of Belarus, Council Regulation (EU) No 588/2011 of 20 June 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures against President Lukashenko and certain officials of Belarus, Council Decision 2011/666/CFSP of 10 October 2011 amending Decision 2010/639/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1000/2011 of 10 October 2011 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus, Council Decision 2012/642/CFSP of 15 October 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Belarus, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1017/2012 of 6 November 2012 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus, in so far as those acts concern BelTechExport ZAO;

               2)

               Dismisses the action as being inadmissible in so far as it concerns Council Decision 2013/534/CFSP of 29 October 2013 amending Decision 2012/642 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1054/2013 of 29 October 2013 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus;

               3)

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by BelTechExport;

               4)

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 290, 1.10.2011.


title: Case C-373/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) by order of that Court of 17 September 2002 in the appeal between Sakir Öztürk and Pensionsversicherungsanstalt der Arbeiter

text:
C 7/8                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      11.1.2003
     (b) German legislation under Article 13(2)(f) of Regu-                          bb) If the answer to Question 3(c)(aa) is affirmative:
           lation 1408/71?
                                                                                does the first sentence of Article 71(1)(b)(ii) of
                                                                                Regulation 1408/71 also mean that the last
2.   If the answer to Question 1(a) is affirmative:
                                                                                employment completed in the territory of a
                                                                                Member State other than the competent State
     (a)   does compulsory national service undertaken in                                  is to be taken into account for the purposes of
           Spain constitute ‘last employment in the territory of                           benefits to unemployed persons as if it had
           a Member State other than the competent State’                                  been completed in the State of residence,
           within the meaning of Article 71(1) of Regulation                               without regard to the requirements stated in
           1408/71?                                                                        Article 67 of Regulation 1408/71? (as per
                                                                                Question 2(b)).
     (b) If the answer to Question 2(a) is affirmative:
                                                                         4.    If the period of Spanish compulsory national service
           does the first sentence of Article 71(1)(b)(ii) of
                                                                               cannot be taken into account under Articles 71 or 67 of
           Regulation 1408/71 also mean that the last employ-                  Regulation 1408/71 for the purposes of the claimant’s
           ment completed in the territory of a Member State
                                                                               entitlement to benefit under German unemployment
           other than the competent State is to be taken into
                                                                               insurance, is there any such entitlement under the
           account for the purposes of benefits to unemployed
                                                                               principle of equality of treatment in Article 3 of Regu-
           persons as if it had been completed in the State of
                                                                               lation 1408/71 or under any other general provisions of
           residence, without regard to the requirements stated                European law?
           in Article 67 of Regulation 1408/71?
     c)    If the answer to Question 2(b) is negative:                   (1 ) OJ L 149 of 05.07.1971, p. 2.
                                                                         (2 ) OJ L 230 of 22.08.1983, p. 6.
           in what circumstances is a period of national                 (3 ) OJ L 206 of 29.07.1991, p. 2.
           service that, under national (Spanish) law, does not
           constitute a period of insurance for unemployment
           insurance purposes or is not treated as such, to be
           considered a period of employment completed as
           an employed person under the legislation of another
           Member State in accordance with Article 67(1) of
           Regulation 1408/71?
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster
3.   If the answer to Question 1(b) is affirmative:                      Gerichtshof (Austria) by order of that Court of 17 Septem-
                                                                         ber 2002 in the appeal between Sakir Öztürk and Pen-
     a)    has a person whose last period of insurance in                            sionsversicherungsanstalt der Arbeiter
           Germany came to an end more than one year
           previously, after which he carried out compulsory
           national service in Spain for nine months, ‘com-                                        (Case C-373/02)
           pleted lastly’ periods of insurance under German law
           within the meaning of Article 67(3) of Regulation                                         (2003/C 7/14)
           1408/71
     b)    If the answer to Question 3(a) is affirmative:
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
           in what circumstances is a period of national                 European Communities by order of the Oberster Gerichtshof
           service that, under national (Spanish) law, does not          (Austria) (Supreme Court) of 17 September 2002, received at
           constitute a period of insurance for unemployment             the Court Registry on 17 October 2002, for a preliminary
           insurance purposes or is not treated as such, to be           ruling in the appeal between Sakir Öztürk and Pensionsversich-
           considered a period of employment completed as                erungsanstalt der Arbeiter on the following questions:
           an employed person under the legislation of another
           Member State in accordance with Article 67(1) of
                                                                         1.    Is the law concerning the association between the Euro-
           Regulation 1408/71? (as per Question 2(c)).
                                                                               pean Economic Community and Turkey (in particular
                                                                               Article 9 of the Agreement establishing an Association
     c)    If Article 67(1) of Regulation 1408/71 should not                   between the European Economic Community and Turkey
           apply to the claimant (Questions 3(a) and (b)):                     of 12 September 1963) to be interpreted as precluding a
                                                                               rule of a Member State which requires inter alia, as a
           aa) does compulsory national service undertaken                     condition of entitlement to an early old-age pension in
                 in Spain constitute ‘last employment in the                   the event of unemployment, that the worker concerned
                 territory of a Member State other than the                    must have drawn a cash benefit on account of his
                 competent State’ within the meaning of                        unemployment from the unemployment insurance
                 Article 71(1) of Regulation 1408/71? (as per                  scheme of that Member State within a certain period
                 Question 2(a)).                                               prior to the qualifying date?
 ---pagebreak--- 11.1.2003               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 7/9
If the answer to the first question is in the negative:                  right in rem), being revoked on the sole ground that, as a result
                                                                         of a legislative amendment which had not yet taken effect at
                                                                         the time at which the abovementioned transaction was carried
2.    Is Article 45(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the
                                                                         out, that transaction is regarded with retroactive effect as an
      Council of 14 June 1971 (1) on the application of social
                                                                         exempt transaction establishing no right to deduct?
      security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed
      persons and to members of their families moving within
      the Community, as amended and updated by Council
      Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 (2), to
      be interpreted as precluding a rule of a Member State
      which requires inter alia, as a condition of entitlement to
      an early old-age pension in the event of unemployment,
      that the worker concerned must have drawn a cash
      benefit on account of his unemployment from the
      unemployment insurance scheme of that Member State                 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Raad van State
      within a certain period prior to the qualifying date?              — IXe Kamer (Belgium) by judgment of that Court of
                                                                         18 October 2002 in the case of NV Firma Leon van Parys
                                                                          against Belgisch Interventie- en Restitutiebureau (BIRB)
( 1) OJ L 149 [1971], p. 2.
( 2) OJ L 28 [1997], p. 1.
                                                                                (Case C-377/02)
                                                                                (2003/C 7/16)
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der                  European Communities by judgment of the Raad van State
Nederlanden by judgment of that Court of 18 October                      (Council of State) of 18 October 2002, received at the Court
2002 in the case of Stichting ‘Goed Wonen’ against                       Registry on 21 October 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the
                 Staatssecretaris van Financiën                          case of NV Firma Leon van Parys against Belgisch Interventie-
                                                                         en Restitutiebureau (BIRB) (Belgian Intervention and Refund
                                                                         Bureau) on the following questions:
                           (Case C-376/02)
                                                                         1.    Do Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 (1) of 13 Febru-
                                                                               ary 1993 on the common organisation of the market in
                            (2003/C 7/15)                                      bananas, as amended by Council Regulation (EC)
                                                                               No 1637/98 ( 2) of 20 July 1998, Commission Regulation
                                                                               (EC) No 2362/98 (3) of 28 October 1998 laying down
                                                                               detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regu-
                                                                               lation (EEC) No 404/93 regarding imports of bananas into
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                         the Community, Commission Regulation (EC) No 2806/
European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad der                          98 ( 4) of 23 December 1998 on the issuing of import
Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) of 18 Octo-                     licences for bananas under the tariff quotas and for
ber 2002, received at the Court Registry on 21 October 2002,                   traditional ACP bananas for the first quarter of 1999 and
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Stichting ‘Goed                        on the submission of new applications, Commission
Wonen’ against Staatssecretaris van Financiën on the following                 Regulation (EC) No 102/99 ( 5) of 15 January 1999 on the
question:                                                                      issuing of import licences for bananas under the tariff
                                                                               quotas and for traditional ACP bananas for the first
                                                                               quarter of 1999 (second period) and Regulation (EC)
                                                                               No 608/1999 (6) of 19 March 1999 on the issuing of
Under circumstances such as those set out at paragraph 6.3.4.
                                                                               import licences for bananas under the tariff quotas and
above, do Articles 17 and 20 of the Sixth Directive or
                                                                               for traditional ACP bananas for the second quarter of
the European law principles of the protection of legitimate
                                                                               1999 and on the submission of new applications infringe
expectations and of legal certainty preclude — in a case not
                                                                               Article I, Article XIII:1 and Article XIII:2(d) of GATT
involving fraud or abuse or any question of a change in
                                                                               1994, taken separately or together, inasmuch as they:
planned use, as mentioned in paragraphs 50 and 51 of the
judgment of the Court of Justice in Schloßstraße — the
adjustment of VAT not deducted by a taxable person which he                    —     introduce to the benefit of twelve countries named
paid in respect of (immovable) property which is supplied to                         in the annex to Regulation No 1637/98 a joint
him and which he originally intended for letting (which is not                       quota of a maximum of 857 700 kg [sic] of bananas
subject to VAT), but subsequently used for a transaction                             (‘traditional ACP bananas’) and, moreover, in that
subject to VAT (in the present case, the grant of a usufructuary                     that quota does not accord with a distribution of


title: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 December 2004 in Case C-463/01: Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (Environment — Free movement of goods — Packaging and packaging waste — Directive 94/62/EC — Exploitation and marketing of natural mineral waters — Directive 80/777/EEC — Deposit and return obligations for non-reusable packaging that depend on the overall percentage of reusable packaging)

text:
               19.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/1

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Grand Chamber)
   of 14 December 2004
   in Case C-463/01: Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (1)

   (Environment - Free movement of goods - Packaging and packaging waste - Directive 94/62/EC - Exploitation and marketing of natural mineral waters - Directive 80/777/EEC - Deposit and return obligations for non-reusable packaging that depend on the overall percentage of reusable packaging)
   (2005/C 45/01)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-463/01: action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 3 December 2001, Commission of the European Communities (Agent: G. zur Hausen) supported by French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues, E. Puisais and D. Petrausch) and by United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent: initially P. Ormond and subsequently C. Jackson) v Federal Republic of Germany (Agents: W.-D. Plessing and T. Rummler, assisted by D. Sellner) – the Court (Grand Chamber), composed of V. Skouris, President, P. Jann and K. Lenaerts (Rapporteur), Presidents of Chambers, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 December 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by establishing, through Paragraphs 8(1) and 9(2) of the Verordnung über die Vermeidung und Verwertung von Verpackungsabfällen (Regulation on the Avoidance and Recovery of Packaging Waste), a system seeking the re-use of packaging for products which, under Council Directive 80/777/EEC of 15 July 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the exploitation and marketing of natural mineral waters, must be bottled at source, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5 of European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste in conjunction with Article 28 EC;

               2.

               Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the French Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 56 of 02.03.2002.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 30 April 1996 in Case C-58/94: Kingdom of the Netherlands v. Council of the European Union (Action for annulment - Rules on public access to Council documents)

text:
No C 180/ 14              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                   22 . 6 . 96
      prior to that date, initiated proceedings or raised an                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      equivalent claim.                                                                             ( Sixth Chamber)
(M OJ No C 196 , 20 . 7 . 1993 .
                                                                                of 2 May 1996
                                                                            in Case C- 1 8/94 ( reference to the Court for a preliminary
                                                                            ruling from the High Court ofJustice of England and Wales,
                                                                            Queen's Bench Division ): Barbara Hopkins and Others v.
                                                                            National Power pic, Powergen pic, third party: British Coal
                                                                                Corporation ( 1 )
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                        (ECSC Treaty — Discrimination between producers —
                           of 30 April 1996                                 Application of Articles 4 and 63 of the Treaty — Direct
in Case C-58/94 : Kingdom of the Netherlands v. Council of                  effect — EC Treaty — Abuse of dominant position —
                       the European Union (')                               Article 86 of the Treaty — Compensation for damage
                                                                            resulting from infringement of those provisions — Powers
 (Action for annulment — Rules on public access to Council                         of the Commission and of the national court)
                               documents)
                                                                                ( 96/C 180/28 )
                             ( 96/C 180/27 )
                (Language of tbe case: Dutch)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-58/94 : Kingdom of the Netherlands ( Agents : A.                  In Case C- 1 8/94 , reference to the Court by the High Court
Bos and J. W. de Zwaan ), supported by the European                         of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division,
Parliament ( Agents : G. Garzón Clariana , C. Pennera and E.                for a preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the EC Treaty
Vandenbosch ) v. Council of the European Union ( Agents :                   and Article 41 of the ECSC Treaty in the proceedings
J. -P. Jacqué and G. Houttuin ), supported by the                           pending before that court between Barbara Hopkins and
Commission of the European Communities ( Agents : P.                        Others v. National Power pic, Powergen pic, third party:
Vaan Nuffel and S. Van Raepenbusch ) and the French                         British Coal Corporation — on the interpretation of
Republic ( Agents : C. de Salins and H. Renié ) — application               Articles 4 and 63 of the ECSC Treaty and Article 86 of the
for the annulment of Council Decision 93/73 1 /EC of                        EC Treaty — the Court ( Sixth Chamber ) composed of C. N.
20 December 1993 on public access to Council documents                      Kakouris , President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch, G. F.
( OJ No L 340, 1993 , p . 43 ), Article 22 of the Rules of                  Mancini ( Rapporteur ), F. A. Schockweiler and P. J. G.
Procedure of the Council as amended by Council Decision                     Kapteyn, Judges, Advocate-General : N. Fennelly, Registrar:
93/662/EC of 6 December 1993 ( OJ No L 304, 1993 , p . 1 )                  L. Hewlett, Administrator, gave a judgment on 2 May 1 996 ,
and the Code of Conduct ( 93/730/EC ) concerning public                     the operative part of which is as follows :
access to Council and Commission documents ( OJ No
L 340, 1 993 , p . 4 1 ) in so far as that act is to be regarded as an
act having legal effects — the Court, composed of G. C.
Rodriguez Iglesias, President, C. N. Kakouris, D. A. O.                     1 . The provisions of the ECSC Treaty, and in particular
Edward, J. -P. Puissochet and G. Hirsch ( Presidents of                         Articles 4 (b) and 63 (1 ) thereof, constitute the legal
Chambers ), G. F. Mancini , F. A. Schockweiler, J. C.                           framework for dealing with discrimination practised by
Moitinho de Almeida ( Rapporteur ), P. J. G. Kapteyn,                           purchasers against producers as regards price, volume
C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm, L. Sevón                       and other terms and conditions for the purchase of
and M. Wathelet, Judges; G. Tesauro, Advocate-General;                          coal.
H. A. Rühl , Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave
a judgment on 30 April 1996 , the operative part of which is
as follows :
                                                                           2 . Articles 4 (b) and 63 (1 ) of the ECSC Treaty do not
I. The application is dismissed.                                                create rights which individuals may rely on directly
                                                                                before national courts. However, wherever the
2 . The Kingdom of the Netherlands is ordered to pay the                        provisions ofa recommendation based on Article 63 (1 )
     costs .
                                                                                appear, as regards their subject-matter, to be
                                                                                unconditional and sufficiently precise, those provisions
                                                                                may be relied upon directly by individuals before the
3 . The French Republic, the European Parliament and the                        national court.
     Commission of the European Communities are ordered
     to bear their own costs .
() OJ No C 90, 26. 3 . 1994.                                               3 Commission decisions based on Articles 65 and 66 (7) of
                                                                                the ECSC Treaty, which are binding in their entirety
                                                                                pursuant to Article 14 of the ECSC Treaty, are binding


title: Case T-515/11: Action brought on 27 September 2011 — Delphi Technologies v OHIM (INNOVATION FOR THE REAL WORLD)

text:
               3.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/22

         Action brought on 27 September 2011 — Delphi Technologies v OHIM (INNOVATION FOR THE REAL WORLD)
   (Case T-515/11)
   2011/C 355/40
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Delphi Technologies, Inc. (Wilmington, United States of America) (represented by: C. Albrecht and J. Heumann, lawyers)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 23 June 2011 in case R 1967/2010-2;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘INNOVATION FOR THE REAL WORLD’, for goods in classes 7, 9, 10 and 12 — Community trade mark application No 7072705

      Decision of the Examiner: Refused the application in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal: (i) misunderstood the burden of arguments and proof laid down in Article 7(1)(b); (ii) erred in applying the relevant case law of the ECJ for the assessment of distinctiveness of slogans and the possible meaning of the mark applied for; and, (iii) neglected the substantial use and notoriety of the mark which is important for the perception of the slogan by the relevant consumers. Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 and the general principles of the administrative proceedings, as the Board of Appeal did not take into account that identical and similar slogans with the word ‘INNOVATION’ have already been registered in the EU and in particular by the OHIM.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 December 2000 in Case T-11/00: Michel Hautem v European Investment Bank (Officials — Removal from post — Failure to comply with a judgment annulling a decision — Article 233 EC — Non-contractual liability of the Community — Non-material damage — Compensation)

text:
24.3.2001              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 95/11
2.    dismisses as inadmissible the application in Case T-85/99;              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
3.    orders the Parliament to bear its own costs, and to pay those of                          of 21 November 2000
      Mr Ripa di Meana and Mr Orlando, in Cases T-83/99 and
      T-84/99;                                                            in Case T-214/99: Manuel Tomás Carrasco Benı́tez v
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities (1)
4.    orders Mr Parigi to bear his own costs, as well as to pay those
      of the Parliament, in Case T-85/99.                                 (Officials — Recruitment — Access to internal competitions
                                                                          — Competition notice — Condition relating to length of
                                                                               service — Professional experience of the candidate)
(1) OJ No C 160 of 5/6/99.
                                                                                (2001/C 95/20)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          In Case T-214/99: Manuel Tomás Carrasco Benı́tez, an official
                                                                          of the Commission of the European Communities, residing in
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               London, represented by J.-N. Louis, G. Parmentier and V. Peere,
                                                                          of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                                                                          at Société de gestion fiduciaire SARL, 13 Avenue du Bois,
                      of 26 September 2000                                against Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
                                                                          J. Currall and D. Waelbroeck) — application for the annulment
                                                                          of the decision of the internal selection boards for competitions
in Case T-138/99: Luc Verheyden v Commission of the
                                                                          COM/T/R/ADM/A/98, COM/R/5179/98, COM/R/5182/98,
                    European Communities (1)
                                                                          COM/R/5183/98, COM/R/5188/98 and COM/R/5190/98 not
                                                                          to admit him to those competitions — the Court of First
(Officials — Prior administrative complaint — Time-limits                 Instance (Third Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President,
— New fact — Promotion — Comparative examination on                       J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; J. Palacio González, Adminis-
                             the merits)                                  trator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 21 November
                                                                          2000, in which it:
                          (2001/C 95/19)                                  1.    dismisses the application;
                                                                          2.    orders each of the parties to bear its own costs.
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          (1) OJ No C 333 of 20/11/99.
In Case T-138/99: Luc Verheyden, an official of the Com-
mission of the European Communities, residing in Angera
(Italy), represented by E. Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
L. Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim, against Commission of
the European Communities (Agents: C. Berardis-Kayser and
F. Clotuche-Duvieusart) — application for the annulment of                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
the decision not to promote the applicant to Grade A4 with
retroactive effect from 10 October 1989 and of the decision                                     of 12 December 2000
not to promote the applicant in the 1998 promotion exercise,
and for compensation for the non-pecuniary damage which                   in Case T-11/00: Michel Hautem v European Investment
he claims to have suffered — the Court of First Instance                                                 Bank (1)
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas, President,
P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke, Judges; G. Herzig, Administrator, for            (Officials — Removal from post — Failure to comply with a
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 26 October 2000, the               judgment annulling a decision — Article 233 EC — Non-
operative part of which is as follows:                                    contractual liability of the Community — Non-material
                                                                                damage — Compensation)
1.    The application is dismissed;
                                                                                (2001/C 95/21)
2.    Each party shall bear its own costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.99.
                                                                          In Case T-11/00: Michel Hautem, a servant of the European
                                                                          Investment Bank, residing in Schouweiler (Luxembourg), rep-
                                                                          resented by M. Karp and J. Choucroun, of the Luxembourg
 ---pagebreak--- C 95/12                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      24.3.2001
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                     the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of:
Chambers of M. Karp, 84 Grand-Rue, against European                       B. Vesterdorf, President, M. Vilaras and N.J. Forwood, Judges;
Investment Bank (Agents: J.-P. Minnaert and G. Vandersanden)              H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 November
— application for compensation for the non-material damage                2000, the operative part of which is as follows:
which the applicant claims to have suffered by reason of the
refusal of the European Investment Bank to comply with the                1.    The Commission’s decision of 10 February 1999 refusing to
judgment of the Court of First Instance of 28 September 1999                    recognise the occupational origin of the disease suffered by
in Case T-140/97 Hautem v EIB [1999] ECR-SC I-A-171 and                         Arlette Fernandes-De Corte is annulled;
II-897 — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), compo-
sed of: R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas, President, P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke,        2.    The remainder of the application is dismissed;
Judges; G. Herzig, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 12 December 2000 in which it:                                 3.    The Commission is ordered to pay the costs.
1.    Orders the European Investment Bank to pay to the applicant
      EUR 25 000 in reparation of the non-material damage which           (1) OJ C 122 of 29.4.00.
      he has incurred;
2.    Orders the European Investment Bank to pay the costs relating
      to the main proceedings;
3.    Orders the European Investment Bank to pay to the cashier of
      the Court the sum of EUR 3 000, or any lower amount
      justified by the applicant as expenses relating to the main             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
      proceedings;
                                                                                of 21 November 2000
4.    Orders each party to bear its own costs in regard to the
      proceedings for interim measures.
                                                                          in Case T-23/00: A v Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities (1)
(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.00.
                                                                          (Officials — Criminal conviction by a national court —
                                                                                Disciplinary procedure — Removal from post)
                                                                                (2001/C 95/23)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                                  (Language of the case: French)
                      of 15 November 2000                                 In Case T-23/00: A, a former official of the Commission of the
                                                                          European Communities, represented by L. Vogel, of the
                                                                          Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
in Case T-20/00: Ivo Camacho-Fernandes v Commission
                                                                          Chambers of C. Kremer, 6 Rue Heinrich Heine, against
                of the European Communities (1)
                                                                          Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Valse-
                                                                          sia and J. Currall) — application for the annulment of the
(Officials — Occupational disease — Exposure to asbestos                  Commission’s decision of 4 November 1999 rejecting the
and other substances — Irregularity in the opinion of the                 complaint lodged by the applicant challenging its decision of
            medical committee — Default procedure)                        23 April 1999 ordering his removal from post and, so far as
                                                                          is necessary, annulment of the opinion delivered by the
                           (2001/C 95/22)                                 Disciplinary Board on 30 November 1998 — the Court of
                                                                          First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: K. Lenaerts,
                                                                          President, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; J. Palacio González,
                                                                          Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          21 November 2000, the operative part of which is as follows:
In Case T-20/00: Ivo Camacho-Fernandes, an official of                    1.    The application is dismissed;
the Commission of the European Communities, residing in
Overijse (Belgium), represented by N. Lhoëst, of the Brussels             2.    Each party shall bear its own costs.
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices
of Fiduciaire Becker & Cahen, 3 Rue des Foyers, against
Commission of the European Communities — application for                  (1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.00.
the annulment of the Commission decision of 10 February
1999 refusing to recognise the occupational origin of the lung
cancer which resulted in the death of the applicant’s wife —


title: Case C-344/15: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Appeal Commissioners (Ireland) made on 6 July 2015 — National Roads Authority v The Revenue Commissioners

text:
               21.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/32

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Appeal Commissioners (Ireland) made on 6 July 2015 — National Roads Authority v The Revenue Commissioners
   (Case C-344/15)
   (2015/C 311/37)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Appeal Commissioners

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: National Roads Authority

      Defendant: The Revenue Commissioners

      Questions referred

               1.

               If a body governed by public law carries on an activity such as providing access to a road on payment of a toll and if in the Member State there are private bodies who collect tolls on different toll roads pursuant to an agreement with the public body concerned under national statutory provisions, is the second indent of Article 13 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the public body concerned must be deemed to be in competition with the private operators concerned such that to treat the public body as a non-taxable person is deemed to lead to a significant distortion of competition notwithstanding the facts that (a) there is not and cannot be any actual competition between the public body and the private operators concerned and (b) there is no evidence that there is any realistic possibility that any private operator could enter the market to build and operate a toll road which would compete with the toll road operated by the public body?

               2.

               If there is no presumption, what exercise should be conducted to determine whether there is a significant distortion of competition within the meaning of the second indent of Article 13 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC?

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


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of  9 February 2006  in Case C-415/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden in Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Stichting Kinderopvang Enschede (Sixth VAT Directive — Exemptions — Supply of services linked to welfare and social security work and protection and education of children or young people)

text:
               8.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/8

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Third Chamber)
   of 9 February 2006
   in Case C-415/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden in Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Stichting Kinderopvang Enschede (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Exemptions - Supply of services linked to welfare and social security work and protection and education of children or young people)
   (2006/C 86/14)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   In Case C-415/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands), made by decision of 24 September 2004, received at the Court on the same day, in the proceedings between Staatssecretaris van Financiën and Stichting Kinderopvang Enschede — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, J. Malenovský, A. La Pergola, A. Borg Barthet (Rapporteur) and A. Ó Caoimh, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 9 February 2006, in which it ruled:
   Article 13A(1)(g) and (h) of 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, read together with Article 13A(2)(b) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that services as an intermediary between persons seeking, and persons offering, a childcare service, provided by a body governed by public law or an organisation recognised as charitable by the Member State concerned, may benefit from exemption under those provisions only where:

               —

               the childcare service itself meets the conditions for exemption laid down in those provisions;

               —

               that service is of such a nature or quality that parents could not be assured of obtaining a service of the same value without the assistance of an intermediary service such as that which is the subject-matter of the dispute in the main proceedings;

               —

               the basic purpose of the intermediary services is not to obtain additional income for the service provider by carrying out transactions which are in direct competition with those of commercial enterprises liable for value added tax.

      (1)  OJ C 284, 20.11.2004.


title: Case C-24/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 18 January 2017 — Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund, Gewerkschaft öffentlicher Dienst v Republik Österreich

text:
               10.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/20

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 18 January 2017 — Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund, Gewerkschaft öffentlicher Dienst v Republik Österreich
   (Case C-24/17)
   (2017/C 112/29)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberster Gerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund, Gewerkschaft öffentlicher Dienst

      Defendant: Republik Österreich

      Questions referred

               1.1.

               Is European Union law, in particular Articles 1, 2 and 6 of Directive 2000/78/EC, (1) in conjunction with Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, to be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which a remuneration system which (in relation to the accreditation of previous service periods completed before the age of 18) discriminates on grounds of age is replaced by a new remuneration system, under which, however, the transition of existing public servants to the new remuneration system occurs in such a way that the new system is implemented retroactively to the date on which the original law entered into force, but the initial grading in the new remuneration system is based on the salary actually paid under the old remuneration system for a specific transition month (February 2015), with the result that the previously existing age discrimination continues in terms of its financial effects?

               1.2.

               If the answer to Question 1.1. is in the affirmative:
               Is European Union law, in particular Article 17 of Directive 2000/78/EC, to be interpreted as meaning that existing public servants who were discriminated against in the old remuneration system in relation to the accreditation of previous service periods completed before the age of 18 must receive financial compensation if that age discrimination continues in terms of its financial effects even after transition to the new remuneration system?

               1.3.

               If the answer to Question 1.1. is in the negative:
               Is European Union law, in particular Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, to be interpreted as meaning that the fundamental right to effective legal protection enshrined therein precludes national legislation under which the age-discriminatory remuneration system is no longer to apply in current and future procedures and the transition of the remuneration of existing public servants to the new remuneration system is to be based solely on the salary calculated or paid for the transition month?

               2.

               Is European Union law, in particular Article 45 TFEU, Article 7(1) of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the EU, (2) and Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, to be interpreted as precluding legislation under which previous service periods completed by a contractual public servant

                           —

                           in an employment relationship with a local authority or municipal association of a Member State of the European Economic Area, the Republic of Turkey or the Swiss Confederation, or with an organisation of the European Union or an intergovernmental organisation of which Austria is a member, or with any similar body, must be accredited in their entirety,

                           —

                           in an employment relationship with another employer, only when exercising a relevant occupation or relevant administrative traineeship, up to a maximum of ten years in total?

      (1)  Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation; OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16.

      (2)  OJ 2011 L 141, p. 1.


title: Case C-56/16 P: Appeal brought on 29 January 2016 by Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 18 November 2015 in Case T-659/14: Instituto dos Vinhos do Douro e do Porto, IP v OHIM

text:
               17.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/5

         Appeal brought on 29 January 2016 by Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 18 November 2015 in Case T-659/14: Instituto dos Vinhos do Douro e do Porto, IP v OHIM
   (Case C-56/16 P)
   (2016/C 175/04)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: O. Mondéjar Ortuño and E. Zaera Cuadrado, Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Instituto dos Vinhos do Douro e do Porto, IP, Bruichladdich Distillery Co.Ltd

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               uphold the appeal in its entirety;

               —

               annul the judgment under appeal;

               —

               order the applicant before the General Court to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The General Court infringed Article 53(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1), read in conjunction with Article 8(4), and Article 53(2)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 by considering that the protection conferred by Regulation (EC) No 491/2009 (2) to registered designations of origin can be supplemented by Decreto-Lei No 173/2009 and Decreto-Lei No 212/2004 and the Portuguese Intellectual Property Code.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark OJ L 78, p. 1

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 491/2009 of 25 May 2009 amending Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 establishing a common organization of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) OJ L 154, p. 1


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 15 September 1998 in Joined Cases C-279/96, C-280/96 and C-281/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova): Ansaldo Energia SpA v Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato, Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v Marine Insurance Consultants Srl and GMB Srl and Others v Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato (Recovery of sums paid but not due - Procedural time-limits under national law - Interest)

text:
C 327/2              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     24.10.98
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      at that date, the directive concerned had not yet been
                                                                         properly transposed into national law.
                   of 15 September 1998
in Case C-260/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from           (1) OJ C 294, 5.10.1996.
the Corte d'Appello di Venezia): Ministero delle Finanze v
                         Spac SpA (1)
(Recovery of sums paid but not due Ð Procedural
               time-limits under national law)
                       (98/C 327/02)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 15 September 1998
               (Language of the case: Italian)                      in Joined Cases C-279/96, C-280/96 and C-281/96
                                                                    (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di
                                                                    Genova): Ansaldo Energia SpA v Amministrazione delle
                                                                    Finanze dello Stato, Amministrazione delle Finanze dello
                                                                    Stato v Marine Insurance Consultants Srl and GMB Srl
                                                                    and Others v Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato (1)
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
         published in the European Court Reports)                   (Recovery of sums paid but not due Ð Procedural
                                                                              time-limits under national law Ð Interest)
                                                                                (98/C 327/03)
In Case C-260/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty from the Corte d'Appello di Venezia
(Court of Appeal, Venice) (Italy), for a preliminary                                (Language of the case: Italian)
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
between Ministero delle Finanze and Spac SpA Ð on the
interpretation of Community law concerning recovery of
sums unduly paid Ð the Court, composed of: G. C.
Rodríguez Iglesias, President, H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
and R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers), G. F. Mancini,                     published in the European Court Reports)
J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, D. A. O.
Edward, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), L. Sevón and K. M.
Ioannou, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate
                                                                    In Joined Cases C-279/96, C-280/96 and C-281/96:
General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator,
                                                                    reference to the Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 September
                                                                    from the Tribunale di Genova (District Court, Genoa)
1998, in which it has ruled:
                                                                    for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
                                                                    before that court between Ansaldo Energia SpA and
                                                                    Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato, and between
                                                                    Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato and Marine
1. Community law does not prohibit a Member State                   Insurance Consultants Srl and between GMB Srl and
    from resisting actions for repayment of charges levied          Others and Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato Ð
    in breach of Community law by relying on a time-                on the interpretation of Community law concerning
    limit under national law of three years, by way of              recovery of sums unduly paid Ð the Court, composed of:
    derogation from the ordinary rules governing actions            G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, H. Ragnemalm, M.
    between private individuals for the recovery of sums            Wathelet and R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers), G. F.
    paid but not due, for which the period allowed is               Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn,
    more favourable, provided that that time-limit applies          D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), L. Sevón
    in the same way to actions based on Community law               and K. M. Ioannou, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,
    for repayment of such charges as to those based on              Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal
    national law.                                                   Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                    15 September 1998, in which it has ruled:
2. In circumstances such as those of the main                       1. In circumstances such as those of the main
    proceedings, Community law does not prevent a                        proceedings, Community law does not prevent a
    Member State from resisting actions for repayment of                 Member State from resisting actions for repayment of
    charges levied in breach of a directive by relying on a              charges levied in breach of a directive by relying on a
    time-limit under national law which is reckoned from                 time-limit under national law which is reckoned from
    the date of payment of the charges in question, even if,             the date of payment of the charges in question, even if,
 ---pagebreak--- 24.10.98             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 327/3
    at that date, the directive concerned had not yet been              survey organisations and for the relevant activities of
    properly transposed into national law.                              maritime administrations, Ireland has failed to fulfil its
                                                                        obligations under Article 16(1) thereof;
2. Community law does not preclude, in the event of the
    repayment of charges levied in breach thereof,                 2. Orders Ireland to pay the costs.
    payment of interest calculated by methods less
    favourable than those applicable under the ordinary
    rules governing actions for the recovery of sums paid          (1) OJ C 55, 20.2.1998.
    but not due between private individuals, provided that
    those methods apply in the same way to such actions
    brought under Community law as to those brought
    under national law.
(1) OJ C 318, 26.10.1996.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 17 September 1998
                                                                   in    Case   C-323/96: Commission of the European
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                           Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (1)
                       (Fifth Chamber)                             (Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations Ð Public
                                                                   works contracts Ð Directives 89/440/EEC and 93/37/
                    of 15 September 1998                           EEC Ð Failure to publish a contract notice Ð Application
                                                                           of negotiated procedure without justification)
in   Case   C-431/97: Commission of the            European
                  Communities v Ireland (1)                                                (98/C 327/05)
(Failure to fulfil obligations Ð Council Directive 94/57/
                 EC Ð Failure to transpose)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                        (98/C 327/04)
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                             published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-431/97: Commission of the European
Communities (Agent: Berend Jan Drijber) v Ireland
(Agent: Michael A. Buckley) Ð application for a                    In Case C-323/96: Commission of the European
declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations        Communities (Agent: Hendrik van Lier) v Kingdom of
or administrative provisions necessary to comply with              Belgium (Agent: Michel FlameÂe) Ð application for a
Council Directive 94/57/EC of 22 November 1994 on                  declaration that, by failing to publish a contract notice in
common rules and standards for ship inspection and                 the Official Journal of the European Communities both
survey organisations and for the relevant activities of            for the overall project and for each of the lots relating to
maritime administrations (OJ L 319, 12.12.1994, p. 20),            the construction of the premises of the Vlaamse Raad, and
Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that            by failing to apply the award procedures laid down in
directive and the EC Treaty Ð the Court (Fifth Chamber),           Council Directive 89/440/EEC of 18 July 1989, amending
composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber,                 Directive 71/305/EEC concerning coordination of
M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), J. C. Moitinho de Almeida,               procedures for the award of public works contracts (OJ
D. A. O. Edward and J.-P. Puissochet, Judges; F. G.                L 210, 21.7.1989, p. 1), and in Council Directive 93/37/
Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a         EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of
judgment on 15 September 1998, in which it:                        procedures for the award of public works contracts (OJ
                                                                   L 199, 9.8.1993, p. 54) and, more specifically, by having
                                                                   awarded Lot No 4 by negotiated procedure without
                                                                   justification, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil
1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the                  its obligations under those directives and, more
    prescribed time-limit, the laws, regulations or                specifically, Articles 7 and 11 of Directive 93/37/EEC Ð
    administrative provisions necessary to comply with             the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: H. Ragnemalm,
    Council Directive 94/57/EC of 22 November 1994 on              President of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini, P. J. G. Kapteyn,
    common rules and standards for ship inspection and             J. L. Murray and K. M. Ioannou (Rapporteur), Judges;


title: Case C-676/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 29 December 2011 — Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer), successor in law to the Office national interprofessionnel des fruits, des légumes, des vins et de l’horticulture (VINIFLHOR) v Coopérative des producteurs d’asperges de Montcalm (COPAM)

text:
               24.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 29 December 2011 — Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer), successor in law to the Office national interprofessionnel des fruits, des légumes, des vins et de l’horticulture (VINIFLHOR) v Coopérative des producteurs d’asperges de Montcalm (COPAM)
   (Case C-676/11)
   2012/C 89/15
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer), successor in law to the Office national interprofessionnel des fruits, des légumes, des vins et de l’horticulture (VINIFLHOR)

      Defendant: Coopérative des producteurs d’asperges de Montcalm (COPAM)

      Questions referred

               1.

               How is the option, granted by Article 2(4) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4045/89 of 21 December 1989 on scrutiny by Member States of transactions forming part of the system of financing by the Guarantee Section of the EAGGF, (1) to extend the scrutiny period ‘for periods … preceding or following the 12-month period’ which it defines, to be implemented by a Member State, having regard to, first, the need to protect the Communities’ financial interests, and second, the principle of legal certainty and the necessity to not give the scrutiny authorities indefinite power?

               2.

               In particular:

                           —

                           Must the period scrutinised, in all instances — if the scrutiny is not to be marred by an irregularity which the person scrutinised may rely on against the decision giving due effect to the results of the scrutiny — end during the twelve month period which precedes the ‘scrutiny’ period during which the scrutiny operations are carried out?

                           —

                           In the event of a positive reply to the preceding question, how must the option, expressly provided for by the regulation, to extend the period of scrutiny for periods ‘following the 12-month period’ be understood?

                           —

                           In the event of a negative reply to the first question, must the scrutiny period nevertheless — if the scrutiny is not to be marred by an irregularity which the scrutinised person may rely on against the decision giving due effect to the results of the scrutiny — include a twelve month period which ends during the scrutiny period preceding that during which the scrutiny was carried out, or, on the contrary, may the scrutiny cover only a period which ends before the beginning of the preceding scrutiny period?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 4045/89 of 21 December 1989 on scrutiny by Member States of transactions forming part of the system of financing by the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund and repealing Directive 77/435/EEC (OJ 1989 L 388, p. 18).


title: Action brought on 20 May 1996 by Söktas Pamuk Ve Tarim Ürünlerini Degerlendirme Ticaret Ve Sanayii AS against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-75/96)

text:
 20 . 7. 96              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 210/21
 financed by the European Social Fund, File No 890588 PI               — pursuant to Articles 178 and 215 of the EC Treaty, order
 on the following grounds :                                                 the Commission to make good the damage caused by
                                                                            it .
— lack of competence, inasmuch as the author of the act
     has no power to make a decision in the name of the
      Commission as regards payment claims for the balance
     submitted by bodies entitled to ESF contributions,                Pleas in law and main arguments
— infringement of Article 190 of the EC Treaty inasmuch
     as it completely lacks a statement of reasons,                    The applicant, a Turkish limited liability company engaged
                                                                       in the manufacture and domestic and export sales, inter alia,
— breach of the principle of giving the interested parties an          of various types of cotton fabric, contests the Commission
     opportunity to be heard beforehand, inasmuch as it was            decision initiating anti-dumping proceedings concerning
     adopted without having given the applicant the                    imports of unbleached cotton fabrics originating in the
     opportunity to comment on its content,                            People's Republic of China, Egypt, India, Indonesia,
                                                                       Pakistan and Turkey, in so far as it affects the applicant.
— breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate
     expectations, inasmuch as, although the claim for
     payment of the balance relating to the file in question          The Commission has acted unlawfully vis-à-vis the
     was submitted in time, the Commission did not adopt               applicant by infringing the rules relating to the application
     within a reasonable period a decision thereon;                    of the EC Treaty and by misusing its powers, in that it has
                                                                       failed to apply the terms of the Agreement establishing an
— breach of essential procedural requirements of                      Association between the EC and Turkey, and in particular,
     Article 6 ( 1 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 2950/83 inasmuch        the procedure laid down in Article 47 of the additional
     as the Portuguese State was not given an opportunity to
                                                                      Protocol, in respect of anti-dumping cases involving the
                                                                       Community and Turkey, in the context of the final phase of
     comment ,
                                                                      customs union between both of them. The applicant stresses
— assuming, as a working hypothesis, that the statement of            in this regard that Article 47 refers to the Association
     reasons of the contested act consists of the letters from         Council, and not to the Commission, as the authority which
     Dafse which contain the financial report, audits, breach         must decide whether dumping is being practised .
     of the obligation to state reasons, of the principle of
     respect for acquired rights, of the principle of the
                                                                      According to the applicant, the approach adopted by the
     protection of legitimate expectations, of the principle
                                                                      Commission places Turkey in the same category as third
     of proportionality, of the rules applicable to the               countries with which the EC does not have the same kind of
     management of the European Social Fund and of the
                                                                      close legal and institutional ties, and thereby renders the
     earlier act approving the contribution in question .
                                                                      customs union established between the EC and Turkey
                                                                      meaningless so far as anti-dumping disputes are concerned,
                                                                      contrary to the Association Agreement.
                                                                      Finally, the applicant criticizes the recent insertion of the
Action brought on 20 May 1996 by Sôktas Pamuk Ve Tarim                sampling provision in Article 17 of the anti-dumping
Uriinlerini Degerlendirme Ticaret Ve Sanayii AS against the           Regulation, in so far as :
         Commission of the European Communities
                          ( Case T-75/96 )
                            ( 96/C 210/50 )
                                                                      — it deprives a cooperating party in an anti-dumping
                                                                           proceeding of a fair review of its individual position,
                 (Language of the case: English)
                                                                      — it makes it easier for the Commission to establish that the
An action against the Commission of the European                           ' Community industry' has cooperated, and
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 20 May 1996 by
Soktas Pamuk Ve Tarim Uriinlerini Degerlendirme Ticaret               — it enables the Commission to impose on parties not
Ve Sanayii AS, represented by Izzet M. Sinan, Barrister,                   included in the sample duties not exceeding the weighted
instructed by Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Brussels, with an                   average margin of dumping or assessed on the facts
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Arendt &                available .   On       the   other  hand,  the   effect   of
Medernach, 8-10 rue Matthias Hardt, Bt. 39 .                               Article 11 ( 4 ) (c ) of the anti-dumping Regulation is that
                                                                           where sampling has been used so-called ' newcomer
                                                                           reviews' under Article 11 ( 4 ) will not be possible .
The applicant claims that the Court should :
— declare the contested decision void and, in accordance
     with Article 87 ( 2 ) of the Rules of Procedure, award
     costs to the applicant,


title: Case T-442/05: Action brought on  16 December 2005  — Biofarma v OHIM

text:
               25.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 74/23

         Action brought on 16 December 2005 — Biofarma v OHIM
   (Case T-442/05)
   (2006/C 74/45)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Biofarma (Neuilly-sur-Seine, France) (represented by: Victor Gil Vega and Antonia Ruiz López, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Anca Health Care Limited
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 September 2005 and declare that there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks CAFON and DAFLON which designate similar products;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs, including the fees of the applicant's representatives.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Surtech International Ltd.

      Community trade mark concerned: word mark ‘CAFON’ for goods in Class 5 (pharmaceutical products and substances).

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: the applicant.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: word mark ‘DAFLON’ (registered in Spain, Portugal, Benelux, Austria, France and Italy) for goods in Class 5 (pharmaceutical products and substances).

      Decision of the Opposition Division: opposition dismissed.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: application dismissed.

      Pleas in law: incorrect application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark.


title: Case C-607/10: Action brought on 22 December 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Sweden

text:
               19.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/8

         Action brought on 22 December 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Sweden
   (Case C-607/10)
   2011/C 89/15
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro and K. Simonsson, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Sweden

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to ensure that the competent authorities see to it, by means of permits in accordance with Articles 6 and 8 of Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (1) or, as appropriate, by reconsidering and, where necessary, by updating the conditions, that existing installations operate in accordance with the requirements of Articles 3, 7, 9, 10 and 13, Article 14(a) and (b) and Article 15(2) not later than 30 October 2007, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   It follows from Article 5(1) of the IPPC Directive that Member States are to adopt the measures necessary to ensure that the competent authorities see to it, by means of permits in accordance with Articles 6 and 8 of Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control or, as appropriate, by reconsidering and, where necessary, by updating the conditions, that existing installations operate in accordance with the requirements of Articles 3, 7, 9, 10 and 13, Article 14(a) and (b) and Article 15(2) not later than 30 October 2007. In the view of the Commission, that obligation is to be understood as covering all existing installations in the Member State in question.
   In accordance with established case-law, a question whether there is a breach of the Treaties is to be assessed against the background of the situation prevailing in the Member State concerned at the time of expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion. It follows from Sweden’s reply to the reasoned opinion that 33 existing installations did not meet the requirements in the IPPC Directive at the time of the reply.
   Furthermore, it is apparent from the attachment to Sweden’s supplementary reply to the reasoned opinion that in October 2010, nearly three years after expiry of the period in the IPPC Directive, there remained 23 existing installations which did not meet the requirements under the directive.

      (1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2008, p. 8.


title: Case F-58/09: Action brought on 10 June 2009 — Pascual García v Commission

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/65

         Action brought on 10 June 2009 — Pascual García v Commission
   (Case F-58/09)
   2009/C 180/122
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Pascual García (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: B. Cortese and C. Cortese, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision to recruit the applicant as a technical assistant, with effect from 10 March 2009, with the classification AST3/Grade 2, in so far as it fails to confer on him the rights and remuneration necessary to ensure correct implementation of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-145/06 Pascual García v Commission [2008] ECR-SC I-A-0000 and II-0000.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Commission’s decision to recruit the applicant as a technical assistant, with effect from 10 March 2009, with the classification AST3/Grade 2, in so far as it fails to confer on him the rights and remuneration necessary to ensure correct implementation of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-145/06 Pascual García v Commission, and in particular:

                           (a)

                           in so far as it fails to provide that the applicant’s qualifying period of service is to be calculated from 1 April 2006 for the purposes of advancement within the classification and the calculation of pension rights and all other relevant purposes;

                           (b)

                           in so far as it denies the applicant’s right to the expatriation allowance in Article 4(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations;

               —

               annul, in so far as necessary, the decision of 10 March 2009 to reject the applicant’s complaint of the same date seeking to secure the rights and remuneration necessary to ensure correct implementation of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-145/06 Pascual García v Commission, including the emoluments and various allowances that have not been paid, together with default interest;

               —

               in the alternative, order the Commission to pay compensation for damages corresponding to the non-recognition of the expatriation allowance;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case C-547/12 P: Appeal brought on 28 November 2012 by the Hellenic Republic against the judgment delivered on 10 October 2012 by the General Court (Second Chamber) in Case T-158/09 Greece v Commission

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/38

         Appeal brought on 28 November 2012 by the Hellenic Republic against the judgment delivered on 10 October 2012 by the General Court (Second Chamber) in Case T-158/09 Greece v Commission
   (Case C-547/12 P)
   2013/C 26/72
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Appellant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: I. Khalkias and S. Papaioannou)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               grant the appeal and set aside the contested judgment of the General Court of the European Union in so far as the General Court held that in Case 4 Magrizos II, EL./1995/017, the Commission lawfully attributed negligence to the Greek authorities as regards failure to recover the relevant financial sums;

               —

               uphold the first plea in law in the action for annulment of the Commission decision because, in that case, the legal conditions for applying Article 32 of Regulation No 1290/2005 and for the Commission’s charging of the sum of EUR 276 347,86 to the Hellenic Republic were not met;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the Hellenic Republic’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The General Court, distorting the clear sense of the evidence in the case-file, appraised the facts incorrectly in Case 4 Magrizos II, EL./1995/017, reaching the erroneous conclusion that in that case the legal conditions for applying Article 32 of Regulation No 1290/2005 and for the Commission’s charging of the sum of EUR 276 347,86 to the Hellenic Republic were met.


title: Case T-316/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 November 2008 — Commission v Premium (Arbitration clause — Contracts entered into under a specific research and technological development programme in the field of information technology — Repayment of part of the advance payment made by the Community — Default interest)

text:
               10.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/23

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 November 2008 — Commission v Premium
   (Case T-316/06) (1)

   (Arbitration clause - Contracts entered into under a specific research and technological development programme in the field of information technology - Repayment of part of the advance payment made by the Community - Default interest)
   (2009/C 6/47)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Montaguti, acting as Agent, assisted by J.-L. Fagnart and F. Longfils, lawyers)

      Defendant: Premium SA (Le Roeulx, Belgium) (represented by: S. Bertouille and D. Joos de ter Beerst, lawyers)
   Re:
   Action under Article 238 EC claiming that the defendant should be ordered to repay part of the advance payments made by the Community, together with default interest, because of failure to comply with certain contractual obligations
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               orders Premium SA to pay to the Commission the principal sum of EUR 57 605,74, together with default interest:

                           —

                           at the rate of 3,36 % per annum for the period from 1 October to 31 December 1998;

                           —

                           at the rate of 3,47 % per annum for the period from 1 January to 31 December 1999;

                           —

                           at the rate of 2,74 % per annum for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2000;

                           —

                           at the rate of 4,26 % per annum for the period from 1 January 2001 to 31 December 2002;

                           —

                           at the rate of 3,29 % per annum for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2003;

                           —

                           at the rate of 2,27 % per annum for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2004;

                           —

                           at the rate of 2,05 % per annum for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2005;

                           —

                           at the rate of 2,11 % per annum for the period from 1 January 2006 to the date of the present judgment;

                           —

                           at the rate applicable under French law for the period from the date of the present judgment to that of final settlement of the principal sum;

               2.

               orders Premium to pay to the Commission the principal sum of EUR 30 988,74, together with default interest:

                           —

                           at the rate of 3,95 % per annum for the period from 1 October to 31 December 1998;

                           —

                           at the rate of 2,85 % per annum for the period from 1 January to 31 December 1999;

                           —

                           at the rate of 3,6 % per annum for the period from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2001;

                           —

                           at the rate of 2,95 % per annum for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2002;

                           —

                           at the rate of 2,15 % per annum for the period from 1 January 2003 to 31 December 2004;

                           —

                           at the rate of 2,4 % per annum for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2005;

                           —

                           at the rate of 2,5 % per annum for the period from 1 January 2006 to the date of the present judgment;

                           —

                           at the rate applicable under Danish law for the period from the date of the present judgment to that of final settlement of the principal sum;

               3.

               orders Premium to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.


title: Case T-89/99: Action brought on 15 April 1999 by Oliver Valk against the European Parliament

text:
C 160/32              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       5.6.1999
The applicant claims that the Court should:                           Action brought on 15 April 1999 by Oliver Valk against
                                                                                the European Parliament
— find his action admissible,
                                                                                (Case T-89/99)
— hold to be unlawful and annul:                                                              (1999/C 160/59)
    (a) the implied rejection of the applicant’s complaint of 9                         (Language of the case: German)
        December 1998 against the act contested under (b)
        below,                                                        An action against the European Parliament was brought before
                                                                      the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                      15 April 1999 by Oliver Valk, resident in Berlin, represented
    (b) Decision No 26264/11.9.1998 of the defendant bear-            by Joachim Kayser, Rechtsanwalt, of Körnerstrasse 5, Berlin,
        ing the signature of the Head of the Personnel Service        and having an address service at the latter’s Chambers.
        Mrs Nouaille-Degorce, rejecting his application of 16
        July 1998 regarding payment of the allowance, under           The applicant claims that the Court should order the defendant
        article 2 (4) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations,          to withdraw its Decision rejecting the applicant as a candidate
        whereby parents may be treated as if they were                in Competition PE/86/A (OJ 77 A, 12.3.1998) and to admit
        dependent children,                                           the applicant to the competition.
— order the defendant to pay that allowance to the applicant          Pleas in law and main arguments
    for the above period, together with interest for late
    payment at 8 % from the date upon which each monthly              The applicant, who on 12 December 1996 passed the Erste
    payment became due,                                               Juristische Staatsprüfung (first State law examination), in which
                                                                      he was awarded the mark ‘befriedigend’ (‘satisfactory’), applied
— order the defendant to pay the applicant’s legal costs, and         within the specified time to take part in Competition
    to so order even if the action is dismissed first, because        PE/86/A (1) for the recruitment of English-language assistant
    there are exceptional circumstances within the meaning of         administrators. On 21 October 1998 he was informed — only
    the first subparagraph of article 87 (3) of the Rules             after having himself made an enquiry in that regard — that he
    of Procedure, in particular circumstances of personal             had not been admitted to the competition because the results
    impecuniosity, as set out in the main body of the                 of his final examination were not equivalent to a ‘Second Class
    application and, secondly, because of the applicant was           Honours {degree}, Division One (a “2.1”)’ in Ireland or the
    impelled to bring this action following the failure of the        United Kingdom.
    defendant to reply to his complaint within the four-month
                                                                      The applicant considers that the defendant has failed to attach
    time-limit laid down.
                                                                      sufficient weight to the significance of the Erste Juristische
                                                                      Staatsprüfung in Germany.
Grounds for annulment and main arguments                              In obtaining the mark ‘bedriedigend’ in his final examination,
                                                                      he was amongst the top 36 % of those sitting that examination
                                                                      in Germany in that year. By contrast, the percentage of
                                                                      graduates obtaining a ‘Second Class Honours, Division One
(a) The defendant wrongly took account of the income of the           (a“2.1”)’ grade in Ireland or the United Kingdom was signifi-
    applicant’s two brothers.                                         cantly higher, as is demonstrated, for example, by the fact that
                                                                      in 1997 and 1998 approximately 70 % of those sitting final
                                                                      examinations at the University of Cambridge obtained a
(b) The defendant miscalculated the applicant’s net monthly           ‘Second Class Honours, Division One (a “2.1”)’.
    income.
                                                                      If the final mark obtained by the applicant were to be regarded
(c) The defendant calculated incorrectly the thresholds of 30 %       as fulfilling the criteria referred to, that would amount
    or 20 % on hypothetical pay (full-time employment),               to discrimination between German law students and other
    instead of on actual pay (part-time employment).                  students, who are normally awarded higher final marks.
                                                                      For the purposes of participating in European Parliament
                                                                      competitions, candidates from Germany should not be
(d) The defendant failed to apply article 10 of the general
                                                                      required to have obtained very much better final grades than
    implementing provisions.
                                                                      candidates from other Member States.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 77 A, 12.3.1998.