title: Case C-392/01: Action brought on 9 October 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain

text:
24.11.2001            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 331/15
period for compliance laid down in the Directive. That period          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Østre Landsret
expired on 1 January 2000 without the United Kingdom                   by order of 26 September 2001 in the case of De Danske
having enacted the provisions necessary to comply with the             Bilimportører v Skatteministeriet, Told- og Skattesty-
Directive referred to in the conclusions of the Commission.                                         relsen
                                                                                (Case C-383/01)
(1) OJ L 001, 5.1.1999, p. 1-2.
                                                                                (2001/C 331/25)
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by order of 26 September 2001 by
Action brought on 4 October 2001 by the Commission of                  the Østre Landsret (Eastern Regional Court), which was
the European Communities against the United Kingdom                    received at the Court Registry on 5 October 2001, for a
                                                                       preliminary ruling in the case of De Danske Bilimportører v
                                                                       Skatteministeriet, Told- og Skattestyrelsen (Duty and Taxation
                        (Case C-382/01)                                Authority of the Ministry of Fiscal Affairs), on the following
                                                                       questions:
                        (2001/C 331/24)
                                                                       1.   Can an indirect duty (registration duty) charged by a
                                                                            Member State, which in the case of new cars amounts to
                                                                            105 % of DKK 52 800 and 180 % of the remainder of
An action against the United Kingdom was brought before the                 the taxable value, be a measure having an effect equivalent
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 4 October                   to a quantitative restriction on imports and for that
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,                         reason prohibited under Article 28 EC (reference is made
represented by Christina Tufvesson, acting as agent, with an                in this connection to the Court’s judgment in Case
address for service in Luxembourg.                                          C-47/88 Commission v Denmark [1990] ECR I-4509,
                                                                            paragraph 13)?
The Applicant requests that the Court should:                          2.   If the answer to Question 1 is ‘yes’: can that registration
                                                                            duty be justified on the grounds that are mentioned in
—     declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations or             Article 30 EC or follow from the Court’s case-law on
      administrative provisions necessary to comply with the                Article 28 EC (reference is made to Case 120/78 Rewe-
      European Parliament and Council Directive 98/78/EC of                 Zentral [1979] ECR 649)?
      27 October 1998 on the supplementary supervision of
      insurance undertakings in an insurance group (1), or, in
      any event, by failing to inform the Commission of
      those measures, the United Kingdom has failed fulfil its
      obligations under that Directive,
—     order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.
                                                                       Action brought on 9 October 2001 by the Commission
                                                                       of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                                                                                Spain
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (Case C-392/01)
Article 249 EC under which a directive shall be binding as to
the result to be achieved, upon each Member State, carries by                                  (2001/C 331/26)
implication an obligation on the Member States to observe the
period for compliance laid down in the directive. That period
expired on 5 June 2000 without the United Kingdom having
enacted the provisions necessary to comply with the directive
referred to in the conclusions of the Commission.                      An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
                                                                       the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 9 Octo-
                                                                       ber 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
(1) OJ L 330, 5.12.1998, p. 1-12.                                      represented by Isabel Martı́nez del Peral, of its Legal Service,
                                                                       acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                       the office of Luis Escobar Guerrero, also of the Commission’s
                                                                       Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
 ---pagebreak--- C 331/16                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     24.11.2001
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             The appellant claims that the Court should:
—     Declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws,
      regulations and administrative provisions needed in order         —     set aside the order of the President of the Court of
      to comply with Directive 97/55/EC (1) of the European                   First Instance of 1 August 2001 in Case T-132/01 R
      Parliament and of the Council of 6 October 1997                         Euroalliages and Others v Commission;
      amending Directive 84/450/EEC (2) concerning mislead-
      ing advertising so as to include comparative advertising,
      or, in any event, by failing to have informed the                 —     dismiss the application for interim measures in Case
      Commission of any such laws, regulations or administrat-                T-132/01 R; and
      ive provisions, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil
      its obligations under Article 3(1) of the Directive,
                                                                        —     order the applicants to pay the costs occasioned by this
—     Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.                            appeal, as well as by the application for interim relief and
                                                                              the application to amend the order of 1 August 2001.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Under Article 3(1) of the Directive, the Kingdom of Spain was           Pleas in law and main arguments
obliged to take the necessary measures to comply with the
requirements of the Directive by 23 April 2000 at the latest
and to inform the Commission thereof forthwith. However,
the Kingdom of Spain has not complied with those obligations,           —     The order misconstrued Article 3(1) of Council Regula-
since it has failed to take the measures necessary to incorporate             tion(EC) No 384/96 (1) in finding that‘ the term “material”
the Directive into the Spanish legal system.                                  can only be understood as a synonym for “serious”’. There
                                                                              is nothing in that Regulation to support the conclusion
                                                                              that a ‘material’ injury within the meaning of Article 3 of
(1) OJ L 290, 23.10.1997, p. 18 .                                             the Regulation is the same as the ‘serious’ damage which
(2) OJ L 250, 19.9.1984, p. 17.                                               must be established for the purposes of an application
                                                                              for interim measures.
                                                                        —     The order failed to have regard to the case-law on
                                                                              exceptional circumstances in finding that the circum-
                                                                              stances of this case justified departing from settled case-
                                                                              law.
Appeal brought on 12 October 2001 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the order made on
1 August 2001 by the President of the Court of First                    —     The order failed to have regard to the case-law in
Instance of the European Communities in Case T-132/01 R                       characterising the damage possibly suffered by the appli-
between Euroalliages, Péchiney Electrométallurgie, Var-                       cants as ‘irreparable’.
gon Alloys AB and Ferroatlantica, and the Commission of
                   the European Communities
                                                                        (Alternatively)
                       (Case C-404/01 P(R))
                          (2001/C 331/27)                               —     In balancing the interests at stake, the contested order:
                                                                              adopts inconsistent reasoning in finding that the regis-
An appeal against the order made on 1 August 2001 by the                      tration of imports without requiring importers to deposit
President of the Court of First Instance of the European                      guarantees would not create an irreversible situation,
Communities in Case T-132/01 R between Euroalliages,                          whereas registration with the deposit of guarantees would
Péchiney Electrométallurgie, Vargon Alloys AB and Ferroatlan-                 do so; and
tica, and the Commission of the European Communities
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 11 October 2001 (by fax received on                            misinterprets Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 384/96
11.10.01) by the Commission of the European Communities                       (which implements the Community’s obligations under
represented by V. Kreuschitz and S. Meany, acting as Agents,                  Article 7 of the GATT agreement on anti-dumping) in
and P. Bentley, Barrister, with an address for service in                     concluding that the registration of imports would not
Luxembourg.                                                                   have the same effect as anti-dumping measures.


title: Case T-118/01: Action brought on 31 May 2001 by Diputación Foral de Bizkaia against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
11.8.2001              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 227/29
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                    article. In the applicant’s view, the present case does not
                                                                               involve any selective advantage of the type which is
—     annul the Commission’s decision not to promote him to                    inherent in all aid, at least as regards the amounts paid to
      grade A6 in the course of the 2000 promotion procedure;                  FGV, the consideration for which was the provision of a
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                                   maritime transport service.
                                                                         —     Misinterpretation of the concept of aid within the mean-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                ing of the abovementioned article, inasmuch as the
                                                                               Commission states that the amounts paid in return for
In support of his action, the applicant pleads a failure to                    travel vouchers did not correspond to any actual need of
provide a statement of reasons, as required by Article 25 of                   the applicant, since they had not yet been used as at the
the Staff Regulations, and also infringement of Article 45 of                  date when the contested decision was adopted. The
the Staff Regulations and breach of the principle of equal                     applicant asserts in that regard that the travel vouchers
treatment and the principle that officials should have reason-                 do not have to be used within any specific period
able career prospects. The applicant bases his claim, inter alia,              and that the purchase of them constituted a normal
on the absence of a staff report.                                              commercial transaction.
                                                                         —     Breach of the right to property enshrined in Article 295
                                                                               EC, inasmuch as the contested decision obliges the
                                                                               contractor providing the transport service to refund all
                                                                               the amounts received, on the basis of the non-utilisation
                                                                               of the vouchers purchased. The applicant states that the
Action brought on 31 May 2001 by Diputación Foral                             imposition of that obligation entails a de facto restriction
de Bizkaia against the Commission of the European                              on the capacity to conclude contracts which goes beyond
                          Communities                                          what is permitted by the Community rules governing
                                                                               State aid.
                        (Case T-118/01)
                                                                         —     Absence or insufficiency of a statement of reasons for the
                        (2001/C 227/56)                                        decision, inasmuch as it does not show that the 1995
                                                                               Agreement has any real effect on competition and intra-
                                                                               Community trade.
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                         —     Misinterpretation of Article 87(2)(a) EC, inasmuch as the
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                      Commission, having acknowledged that the aid benefits
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                     individual consumers with special needs and may there-
European Communities on 31 May 2001 by Diputación Foral                       fore be regarded as aid having a social character, goes on
de Bizkaia, established in Bilbao (Spain), represented by                      to state, without producing any evidence in support, that
Marta Morales Isasi and Ignacio Saenz-Cortabarria Fernández,                  the condition laid down by the Treaty (namely, the
abogados.                                                                      absence of discrimination related to the origin of the
                                                                               products concerned) is not fulfilled.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the Commission’s decision of 29 November 2000
      on the aid scheme implemented by Spain in favour of the            In the alternative, in the event that the Court of First Instance
      shipping company Ferries Golfo de Vizcaya (OJ L 89 of              considers that — as the contested decision maintains — the
      29 March 2001, p. 28);                                             1995 Agreement in itself constitutes State aid in favour of
—     annul Article 2 of that decision in so far as it orders the        FGV within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC, the applicant
      recovery of ESP 985 500 000 together with interest                 asserts that it is lawful aid (existing aid), since the Kingdom of
      thereon;                                                           Spain has not infringed the obligation laid down in the final
                                                                         sentence of Article 93(3) of the Treaty (now Article 88(3) EC).
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                             Given that what is involved is lawful aid, Article 14(1) of
                                                                         Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down
                                                                         detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          does not permit its recovery, and Article 2 of the decision is
                                                                         therefore null and void.
The applicant bases its action on the following pleas:
—     Infringement of Article 87(1) EC, on account of the
      incorrect assessment made by the Commission in con-
      sidering, from the outset, that all the amounts granted to
      Ferries Golfo de Vizcaya (FGV) under the 1995 Agree-
      ment constitute State aid within the meaning of that


title: ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 18 August 1995 in Case T-146/95 R: Giorgio Bernardi v. European Parliament

text:
14 . 10 . 95            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 268/23
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             Parliament concerning the subsequent conduct of that
                          of 29 June 1995                              procedure, the President of the Court of First Instance has
                                                                       made an order on 18 August 1995 , in which :
in Case T-6/95 : Cantine dei colli Berici coop, arl v.
        Commission of the European Communities ( J )                   1 , the application for interim measures is dismissed;
(Agriculture — Common organization ofthe market in wine
— System of compulsory distillation — Admissibility —                  2,   the costs are reserved.
       Applicant individually concerned by a regulation)
                           ( 95/C 268/49 )
                 (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                       Action brought on 28 February 1995 by Comafrica SpA and
In Case T-6/95 : Cantine dei colli Berici coop , arl, having its       another against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
registered office in Lonigo ( Italy ), represented by Ivone
Cacciavillani, of the Venice Bar, with an address for service                                  ( Case T-72/95 )
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alain Lorang, 51 rue                                            ( 95/C 268/51 )
Albert I er, against Commission of the European
Communities ( Agents : Eugenio de March and Alberto Dal                                (Language of the case: English)
Ferro ) — application for the annulment of Article 1 ( 1 ) of
Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 3151 /94 of 21 December
1994 introducing a further derogation from the detailed                An action against the Commission of the European
rules for the delivery by producers of the table wine they are         Communities was brought before the Court of First
required to deliver for compulsory distillation in respect of          Instance of the European Communities on 28 February
the 1993/94 wine year ( OJ L 332, 1994, p. 32 ) — the Court            1 995 by Comafrica SpA, established at Genoa (Italy ), and
of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: J.                     Dole Fresh Fruit Europe Ltd & Co ., established at Hamburg
Biancarelli, President, C. P. Briët and C. W. Bellamy, Judges;         ( Germany ), represented by Bernard O'Connor, Solicitor
H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 29 June 1995 , the                ( Ireland ), with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
operative part of which is as follows :                                Chambers of Arsène Kronshagen, 12 boulevard de la
                                                                       Foire .
I , the application is dismissed as inadmissible;
                                                                       The applicants claim that the Court should :
2 , the applicant is ordered to pay the costs, including those
      relating to the application for interim measures;                — déclaré the application admissible,
3 , the Council shall bear the costs which it incurred in              — declare void Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 2947/94
      submitting its application to intervene.                              of 2 December 1994 fixing the single reduction
                                                                            coefficient for the determination of the quantity of
                                                                            bananas to be allocated to operators in categories A and
( 1 ) OJ No C 74, 25 . 3 . 1995 .                                           B from the tariff quota for 1995 ( ! ), in so far as it affects
                                                                            the applicants, or alternatively, erga omnes,
                                                                       — order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
           OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              The applicants, both of which import bananas into the
                                                                       Community, dispute the decisions of the Commission to
                        of 18 August 1995
                                                                       reduce the quantity of bananas allocated to them for the
in Case T-146/95 R: Giorgio Bernardi v. European                       year 1995 through the allocation of a provisional reduction
                              Parliament                               coefficient set out in the contested regulation.
                           ( 95/C 268/50 )
                                                                       They maintain, first, that the Commission determined the
                                                                       reduction coefficient on the basis of wrongly calculated
                 (Language of the case: French)                        reference quantities, in that the contested Regulation
                                                                       acknowledges that certain quantities have been counted
In Case T- 1 46/95 R: Giorgio Bernardi, a former official of           twice for different operators in several Member States, and
the European Parliament, residing in Luxembourg,                       that the criteria for determining the activities giving right to
represented by Giancarlo Lattanzi, of the Massa-Carrara                an allocation from the tariff quota have been incorrectly
Bar ( Italy ), with an address for service in Luxembourg at the        applied . The Commission has further admitted that the
applicant's residence, 33 rue Godchaux v . European                     1995 reference quantities can only be laid down after
Parliament ( Agents : Ezio Perillo and Christian Pennera ) —           further checks have been made . In the circumstances, it has
application for interim measures, namely for suspension of             chosen to fix a provisional reduction coefficient using
the procedure for appointment to the office of Ombudsman               wrong information, but without the necessary express
and for various instructions to be addressed to the European           power so to do.


title: Case C-47/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 30 January 2014 — Holterman Ferho Exploitatie BV and Others, other party: F.L.F. Spies von Büllesheim

text:
               7.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/20

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 30 January 2014 — Holterman Ferho Exploitatie BV and Others, other party: F.L.F. Spies von Büllesheim
   (Case C-47/14)
   2014/C 102/29
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Holterman Ferho Exploitatie BV, Ferho Bewehrungsstahl GmbH, Ferho Vechta GmbH and Ferho Frankfurt GmbH

      Other party: F.L.F. Spies von Büllesheim

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must the provisions of Section 5 of Chapter II (Articles 18-21) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (1) be interpreted as precluding the application by the courts of Article 5(1)(a) or of Article 5(3) of that Regulation in a case such as that at issue here, where the defendant is held liable by the company not only in his capacity as director of that company on the basis of the improper performance of his duties or on the basis of unlawful conduct, but quite apart from that capacity, is also held liable by that company on the basis of intent or deliberate recklessness in the execution of the contract of employment entered into between him and the company?

               2

                           (a)

                           If the answer to question 1 is in the negative, must the term ‘matters relating to a contract’ in Article 5(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 then be interpreted as also applying to a case such as that at issue here, where a company holds a person liable in his capacity as director of that company on the basis of the breach of his obligation to properly perform his duties under company law?

                           (b)

                           If the answer to question 2(a) is in the affirmative, must the term ‘place of performance of the obligation in question’ in Article 5(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 then be interpreted as referring to the place where the director performed or should have performed his duties under company law, which, as a rule, will be the place where the company concerned has its central administration or its principal place of business, as referred to in Article 60(1)(b) and (c) of that Regulation?

               3

                           (a)

                           If the answer to question 1 is in the negative, must the term ‘matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict’ in Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 then be interpreted as also applying to a case such as that at issue here, where a company holds a person liable in his capacity as director of that company on the basis of the improper performance of his duties under company law or on the basis of unlawful conduct?

                           (b)

                           If the answer to question 3(a) is in the affirmative, must the term ‘place where the harmful event occurred or may occur’ in Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 be interpreted as referring to the place where the director performed or should have performed his duties under company law, which, as a rule, will be the place where the company concerned has its central administration or its principal place of business, as referred to in Article 60(1)(b) and (c) of that Regulation?

      (1)  Council Regulation of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1).


title: Case C-337/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 21 July 2008 — X Holding BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

text:
               25.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 272/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 21 July 2008 — X Holding BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-337/08)
   (2008/C 272/15)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: X Holding BV

      Respondent: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   Question referred
   Must Article 43 EC, in conjunction with Article 48 EC, be interpreted as precluding national rules of a Member State, … which allow a parent company and its subsidiary to opt to have the tax for which they are liable levied on the parent company established in that Member State as if they were a single taxpayer, but which reserve that option to companies which, for the taxation of their profits, are subject to the fiscal jurisdiction of the Member State concerned?


title: Case T-192/16: Order of the General Court of 28 February 2017 — NF v European Council (Action for annulment — EU-Turkey statement of 18 March 2016 — Press release — Concept of ‘international agreement’ — Identification of the author of the act — Scope of the act — Meeting of the European Council — Meeting of the Heads of State or Government of the Member States of the European Union held on the premises of the Council of the European Union — Capacity of the representatives of the Member States of the European Union during a meeting with the representative of a third country — First paragraph of Article 263 TFEU — Lack of jurisdiction)

text:
               18.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 121/30

         Order of the General Court of 28 February 2017 — NF v European Council
   (Case T-192/16) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - EU-Turkey statement of 18 March 2016 - Press release - Concept of ‘international agreement’ - Identification of the author of the act - Scope of the act - Meeting of the European Council - Meeting of the Heads of State or Government of the Member States of the European Union held on the premises of the Council of the European Union - Capacity of the representatives of the Member States of the European Union during a meeting with the representative of a third country - First paragraph of Article 263 TFEU - Lack of jurisdiction))
   (2017/C 121/44)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: NF (represented by: B. Burns, Solicitor, P. O’Shea and I. Whelan, Barristers)

      Defendant: European Council (represented by: K. Pleśniak, Á. de Elera-San Miguel Hurtado and S. Boelaert, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking the annulment of an alleged agreement concluded between the European Council and the Republic of Turkey dated 18 March 2016 and entitled ‘EU-Turkey statement, 18 March 2016’.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed on the ground of the Court’s lack of jurisdiction to hear and determine it.

               2.

               There is no need to rule on the applications for leave to intervene submitted by NQ, NR, NS, NT, NU and NV, as well as by the Kingdom of Belgium, the Hellenic Republic and the European Commission.

               3.

               NF and the European Council shall bear their own costs.

               4.

               NQ, NR, NS, NT, NU and NV, as well as the Kingdom of Belgium, the Hellenic Republic and the Commission, shall bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 232, 27.6.2016.


title: Case C-354/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Retten i Kolding (Denmark) lodged on 27 June 2013 — FOA, acting on behalf of Karsten Kaltoft v Billund Kommune

text:
               31.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/22

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Retten i Kolding (Denmark) lodged on 27 June 2013 — FOA, acting on behalf of Karsten Kaltoft v Billund Kommune
   (Case C-354/13)
   2013/C 252/37
   Language of the case: Danish

      Referring court

   Retten i Kolding

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: FOA, acting on behalf of Karsten Kaltoft

      Defendant: Billund Kommune

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is it contrary to EU law as expressed, for example, in Article 6 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, generally or particularly for a public-sector employer to discriminate on grounds of obesity in the labour market?

               2.

               If there is an EU prohibition on discrimination on grounds of obesity, is it directly applicable as between a Danish citizen and his employer, a public authority?

               3.

               Should the Court find that there is a prohibition under EU law on discrimination on grounds of obesity in the labour market generally or in particular for public-sector employers, is the assessment as to whether action has been taken contrary to a potential prohibition on discrimination on grounds of obesity in that case to be conducted with a shared burden of proof, with the result that the actual implementation of the prohibition in cases where proof of such discrimination has been made out requires that the burden of proof be placed on the respondent/defendant employer (see recital 18 in the preamble to Council Directive 97/80/EC of 15 December 1997 on the burden of proof in cases of discrimination based on sex (1))?

               4.

               Can obesity be deemed to be to be a handicap covered by the protection provided for in Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (2) and, if so, which criteria will be decisive for the assessment as to whether a person’s obesity means specifically that that person is protected by the prohibition on discrimination on grounds of handicap as laid down in that directive?

      (1)  OJ 1998 L 14, p. 6.

      (2)  OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16.


title: Case C-394/05: Action brought on  9 November 2005  by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
               28.1.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/5

         Action brought on 9 November 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
   (Case C-394/05)
   (2006/C 22/10)
   Language of the case: Italian
   An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 9 November 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by D. Recchia and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that the Italian Republic, by adopting Legislative Decree No 209 of 24 June 2003 transposing the provisions of Directive 2000/53/EC (1) into national law in a manner inconsistent with the directive itself, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(2) and (5), Article 3(5), Article 4(2)(a) in conjunction with Annex II, Article 5(1) to (4), Article 6(3)(a) and (4), Article 7(1) and (2), Article 8(3) and (4), Article 10(3) and Article 12(2) of Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 September 2000 on end-of life vehicles;

               2.

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Commission of the European Communities brought an action on 7 November 2005 before the Court of Justice of the European Communities for a declaration that the Italian Republic, having failed to take all the measures necessary to:

               —

               define end-of-life vehicles which are waste and their treatment, corresponding to those laid down in the directive;

               —

               include three-wheel motor vehicles in end-of-life vehicles in the Legislative Decree transposing the directive;

               —

               provide clearly that all dangerous materials and components as laid down in Annex II of the directive are removed from vehicles before any further treatment;

               —

               provide, as far as technically feasible, for the collection in suitable collection facilities of waste used parts removed when passenger cars are repaired;

               —

               regarding the issue of certificates of destruction, ensure that those are issued by authorised treatment centres as provided for in Article 6 of the directive. The issue of those certificates also does not appear to be a condition for the de-registration of end-of life vehicles as required by the directive;

               —

               ensure that producers meet all, or a significant part of, the costs of the implementation of the system of free delivery of end-of-life vehicles;

               —

               ensure the safety of dangerous components of end-of-life vehicles before they are treated;

               —

               give preference to recycling over other recovery methods of the vehicles in question;

               —

               preclude transposition of certain specific provisions of the directive, stated therein, through agreements within the meaning of Article 10 of the directive;

               —

               implement a system of controls and assessments necessary to evaluate the attainment of the objectives stated in the directive so that those objectives have been attained before 1 January 2006;

               —

               determine that the information to be provided by the producers of vehicles and components must reflect what is required by the treatment facilities;

               —

               implement the obligation to regularly monitor the results achieved and to report such results to the competent authorities and the Commission and, likewise, implement the obligation on the competent authorities to make provisions for examining the progress reached under an agreement;

         has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(2) and (5), Article 3(5), Article 4(2)(a) in conjunction with Annex II, Article 5(1) to (4), Article 6(3)(a) and (4), Article 7(1) and (2), Article 8(3) and (4), Article 10(3) and Article 12(2) of Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 September 2000 on end-of life vehicles.
   The Commission also requests that the Italian Republic be ordered to pay the costs of the action.

      (1)  OJ L 269 of 21.10.2000, p. 34.


title: Case F-121/05: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 14 June 2007 — De Meerleer v Commission (Staff case — Officials — Open Competition — Non-admission to the written tests — Professional experience — Obligation to state reasons — Communication of the decision of the selection board — Request for re-examination)

text:
               21.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 170/42

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 14 June 2007 — De Meerleer v Commission
   (Case F-121/05) (1)

   (Staff case - Officials - Open Competition - Non-admission to the written tests - Professional experience - Obligation to state reasons - Communication of the decision of the selection board - Request for re-examination)
   (2007/C 170/80)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Michel De Meerleer (Ophain-Bois-Seigneur-Isaac, Belgium) (represented by: E. Boigelet, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and K. Herrmann, Agents)
   Re:
   First, annulment of the decisions of the Selection Board in competition EPSO/A/19/04 not to accept the applicant's candidature and not to reach a decision on his request for re-examination, and second, an application for damages
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 60, 11.3.2006, p. 52.


title: Case T-163/17: Action brought on 14 March 2017 — Consorzio di Garanzia dell’Olio Extra Vergine di Oliva di Qualità v Commission

text:
               24.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/38

         Action brought on 14 March 2017 — Consorzio di Garanzia dell’Olio Extra Vergine di Oliva di Qualità v Commission
   (Case T-163/17)
   (2017/C 129/58)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Consorzio di Garanzia dell’Olio Extra Vergine di Oliva di Qualità (Rome, Italy) (represented by: A. Fratini and G. Pandolfi, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               allow the action and accordingly, declare that Commission has incurred non-contractual liability in accordance with Article 268 and the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU;

               —

               order the payment of damages for material harm (actual loss and loss of profit) and non-material harm (to image and reputation) suffered by the applicant;

               —

               order the payment of compensatory interest and default interest;

               —

               order the Commission to pay all the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant in the present action seeks to obtain damages for harm sustained, first, as a result of the Commission’s uncoordinated management of EU programmes for the promotion of olive oil in third countries and, second, because of the failure, by the Commission, to eliminate successfully the harmful and distortive competitive effects caused by the uncoordinated overlap of the two programmes.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, relating to the Commission’s unlawful conduct in relation to infringement of the principle of non-discrimination laid down in Articles 18 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the principle of protection of legitimate expectations, the Commission having failed to coordinate coherently EU programmes for the promotion of olive oil in third countries, as well the principle of good administration and the right to good administration laid down in Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of European Union, the Commission having failed, according to the applicant, to adopt the measures which were required once it had become aware of the anti-competitive effects resulting from the lack of coordination of the two promotional campaigns.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging the existence of actual and certain damage relating to the fact that, by failing to meet its obligations, the Commission caused significant harm to the applicant (actual loss, loss of profit and non-material harm).

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging the existence of a causal link relating to the fact that, the harm suffered being a sufficiently direct and immediate consequence of the poor management of the programmes of promotion of olive oil in third countries, a direct cause-and-effect relationship emerges from the Commission’s conduct and the harm sustained, which must be made good in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU.


title: Joined Cases C-376/15 P and C-377/15 P: Appeal brought on 9 July 2015 by Changshu City Standard Parts Factory, Ningbo Jinding Fastener Co. Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 29 April 2015 in Joined Cases T-558/12 and T-559/12: Changshu City Standard Parts Factory and Ningbo Jinding Fastener Co. Ltd v Council of the European Union

text:
               16.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 381/12

         Appeal brought on 9 July 2015 by Changshu City Standard Parts Factory, Ningbo Jinding Fastener Co. Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 29 April 2015 in Joined Cases T-558/12 and T-559/12: Changshu City Standard Parts Factory and Ningbo Jinding Fastener Co. Ltd v Council of the European Union
   (Joined Cases C-376/15 P and C-377/15 P)
   (2015/C 381/15)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Changshu City Standard Parts Factory, Ningbo Jinding Fastener Co. Ltd (represented by: R. Antonini, avvocato, E. Monard, avocat)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European Industrial Fasteners Institute AISBL (EIFI)

      Form of order sought

   The appellants claim that the Court should:

               1)

               set aside the judgment of the General Court in Joined Cases T-558/12 and T-559/12 Changshu City Standard Parts Factory and Ningbo Jinding Fastener Co. Ltd v Council of the European Union;

               2)

               grant the form of order sought by the Appellants in their application made to the General Court and annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 924/2012 of 4 October 2012 amending Regulation EC No 91/2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China (1), insofar as it relates to the Appellants;

               3)

               order the Council to bear the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and the Court of Justice, including those of the Appellants;

               4)

               order the intervening parties to bear their own costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Appellants argue that the General Court, in particular as regards the notion of ‘all [comparable] export transactions’ and the relationship between the provisions concerned, erred in law by misconstruing Articles 2(10) and 2(11) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (2) and Articles 2.4 and 2.4.2 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994; and imposed an unreasonable burden of proof on the Appellants.
   The Appellants further argue that the General Court erred in law by misconstruing Articles 2(10) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community and Article 2.4 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994, failed to address certain claims of the Appellants and erred in law when assessing the requirement to state reasons under Article 296 TFEU.

      (1)  OJ L 275, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ L 343, p. 51.


title: Action brought on 11 June 1997 by Albano Moncada against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-178/97)

text:
16 . 8 . 97          EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                              No C 252/35
First, the applicant alleges misuse of powers and abuse of           He pleads infringement of Article 23 of the Rules of
process, because the series of employment contracts or of            Procedure of the Commission of 17 February 1993 , since
contracts for the supply of services concluded with a series         he was automatically entitled and required to deputize for
of companies is unlawful, inasmuch as the contractual                his hierarchical superior during the latter's absences, in
terms were defined, not according to the needs of the                particular on 16 and 20 August 1996 . According to the
service, but with the sole aim of evading the application of         applicant, the contested decision was therefore adopted
the provisions of the Staff Regulations or other rules.              wilfully and in disregard of the steps taken by the
Those contracts must be regarded as concluded with an                applicant to ensure that his rights were respected.
agent covered by the Staff Regulations and/or the                    Moreover, such conduct represents a flagrant breach of
Conditions of Employment of Other Servants.                          the Commission's duty to have regard for his interests as
                                                                     one of its officials .
The second plea alleges breach of the duty to have regard
for the welfare and interests of officials, the duty to              His second plea alleges infringement of Article 25 of the
provide assistance and breach of the principle of                    Staff Regulation, on the ground that the Commission
protection of legitimate expectations, and also                      failed to provide a reasoned statement informing the
infringement of Article 3 of the European Convention on              applicant of the factors on the basis of which the merits of
                                                                     the contested decision could be assessed .
Human Rights, inasmuch as the Commission failed to
take action when the applicant requested its help .
                                                                     As regards the claim for compensation, the applicant
                                                                     maintains that he has suffered non-material damage, since
Last, the applicant assesses her non-material damage                 for nearly two years he has been in a state of uncertainty
caused by those infringements and failures at the symbolic           as to the future of his career.
sum of ECU 1 .
                                                                     Action brought on 17 June 1997 by Huguette Meyer and
Action brought on 11 June 1997 by Albano Moncada                     others against the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                                Communities
   against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                ( Case T-181/97)
                       ( Case T-l 78/97 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 252/77 )
                         ( 97/C 252/76 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                     An action against the Court of Justice of the European
An action against the Commission of the European                     Communities was brought before the Court of First
Communities was brought before the Court of First                    Instance of the European Communities on 17 June 1997
Instance of the European Communities on 11 June 1997                 by Huguette Meyer, residing at Mamer ( Luxembourg ),
by Albano Moncada, residing in Luxembourg, represented               Ines Bruno, residing in Luxembourg, Alba Muller di
by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane                     Leonardo, residing at Mersch ( Luxembourg), Maria da
Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in          Paz Gomes, residing in Luxembourg, and Leonor Araujo,
Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30               residing at Strassen ( Luxembourg ), represented by Jean
Rue de Cessange.                                                     Noel Louis, Ariane Tornel and Fran?oise Parmentier, of
                                                                     the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                     Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari , 30
The applicant claims that the Court should:                          Rue de Cessange .
— annul the decision of 12 August 1996 directing a                   The applicants claim that the Court should:
     colleague of the applicant to deputize for his
     hierarchical superior during the latter's absences on 16        — annul the decisions expressly rejecting their requests
     and 20 August 1996,                                                  for reimbursement of the sums wrongly deducted in
                                                                          respect of household grants,
— order the Commission to pay to the applicant the                   — order the defendant to reimburse to them all sums
     token sum of ECU 1 ,                                                 wrongly deducted and to pay interest thereon at the
                                                                          rate of 8 % per annum from the date when each
— order the Commission to pay the costs .                                 deduction was made until the date of reimbursement,
                                                                     — order the defendant to pay the costs.
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 The applicant, a grade A 4 official, contests the decision
 of his Head of Unit directing a colleague of the applicant           The applicants, whose spouses work in the Luxembourg
 to deputize for the Head of Division E-3 during the                  banking sector, state that up until June 1996 the defendant
 latter's absences on 16 and 20 August 1996 .                         deducted, pursuant to Article 67 ( 2 ) of the Staff


title: Case C-83/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Freiburg by order of that court of 14 January 2005 in the case of Bernd Voigt v Regierungspräsidium Karlsruhe–Bretten

text:
               2.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/25

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Freiburg by order of that court of 14 January 2005 in the case of Bernd Voigt v Regierungspräsidium Karlsruhe–Bretten
   (Case C-83/05)
   (2005/C 82/51)
   Language of the case: German
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Amtsgericht Freiburg (Freiburg Regional Court) (Germany) of 14 January 2005, received at the Court Registry on 18 February 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Bernd Voigt and Regierungspräsidium Karlsruhe–Bretten on the following questions:

               1.

               Is Directive 70/156/EEC on type-approval, (1) as amended by Council Directive 92/53/EEC of 18 June 1992, (2) implemented in German law in the EG-TypV (Verordnung über die EG-Typgenehmigung für Fahrzeuge und Fahrzeugteile (Regulation on EC type-approval of vehicles and vehicle components) of 9 December 1994, most recently amended on 7 February 2004), to be interpreted as meaning that the driver of a motor vehicle whose vehicle has been registered as a passenger car in accordance with a vehicle authorisation based on EC type-approval is also entitled to use that vehicle, as an authorised vehicle type, on the public highway, and in particular is the driver of such a motor vehicle also subject only to the speed requirements applicable to passenger cars?

               2.

               May the authorities responsible for prosecuting road traffic offences declare that the vehicle authorisations in accordance with EC type-approval issued by the Kraftfahrt-Bundesamt (Federal Office for Motor Vehicles) and the registrations issued by the German registration authorities based on these EC type-approvals are not decisive when establishing the speed requirements to be complied with by the driver of such a vehicle type?

      (1)  Council Directive 70/156/EEC of 6 February 1970 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the type-approval of motor vehicles and their trailers (OJ, English Special Edition 1970 (I), p. 96).

      (2)  Council Directive 92/53/EEC of 18 June 1992 amending Directive 70/156/EEC (OJ 1992 L 225, p. 1).


title: Case C-13/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof lodged on 14 January 2008 — Agricultural matter involving Erich Stamm, Anneliese Hauser and Regierungspräsidium Freiburg

text:
               12.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 92/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof lodged on 14 January 2008 — Agricultural matter involving Erich Stamm, Anneliese Hauser and Regierungspräsidium Freiburg
   (Case C-13/08)
   (2008/C 92/20)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesgerichtshof
   Parties to the main proceedings
   Erich Stamm, Anneliese Hauser and Regierungspräsidium Freiburg
   Question referred
   Must Article 15(1) of Annex I to the Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons (1) be interpreted as meaning that, as regards access to a self-employed activity and the pursuit thereof, only self-employed persons within the meaning of Article 12(1) of Annex I to the agreement are to be afforded no less favourable treatment in the host country than that accorded to its own nationals, or does this also apply to self-employed frontier workers within the meaning of Article 13(1) of Annex I to the agreement.

      (1)  OJ 2002 L 114, p. 6.


title: Case T-254/00 R: Order of the Court of First Instance of 14 July 2008 — Hotel Cipriani v Commission

text:
               27.9.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/23

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 14 July 2008 — Hotel Cipriani v Commission
   (Case T-254/00 R)
   (2008/C 247/46)

      Language of the case: Italian

   The President of the Court of First Instance has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


title: Case C-527/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 21 November 2014  — Ukamaka Mary Jecinta Oruche and Nzubechukwu Emmanuel Oruche v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

text:
               26.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/19

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 21 November 2014 — Ukamaka Mary Jecinta Oruche and Nzubechukwu Emmanuel Oruche v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
   (Case C-527/14)
   (2015/C 026/22)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Ukamaka Mary Jecinta Oruche and Nzubechukwu Emmanuel Oruche

      Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

      Other parties: Oberbürgermeister der Stadt Potsdam, Emeka Emmanuel Mary Oruche

      Question referred

   Should the first subparagraph of Article 7(2) of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification (1) be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law which makes the first entry of a member of the family of a sponsor conditional on the requirement that, prior to entry, the family member can demonstrate the ability to communicate, in a basic way, in the German language?

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 251, p. 12.


title: Case T-510/12: Action brought on 21 November 2012 — Conrad Electronic v OHIM — Sky IP International (EuroSky)

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/65

         Action brought on 21 November 2012 — Conrad Electronic v OHIM — Sky IP International (EuroSky)
   (Case T-510/12)
   2013/C 26/128
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Conrad Electronic SE (Hirschau, Germany) (represented by: P. Mes, C. Graf von der Groeben, G. Rother, J. Bühling, J. Künzel, D. Jestaedt, M. Bergermann, J. Vogtmeier and A. Kramer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sky IP International Ltd (Isleworth, United Kingdom)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 September 2012 in Case R 1183/2011-4;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs including the costs incurred in the appeal proceedings

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘EuroSky’ for goods in Class 9 — Community trade mark application No 4 539 896

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Sky IP International Ltd

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the national and Community word and figurative mark ‘SKY’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 18, 25, 28, 35, 36, 38, 41, 42, 43 and 45

      Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case C-191/06: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 March 2007 — (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Lecce (Italy)) — Criminal proceedings against Aniello Gallo, Gianluca Damonte (Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure — Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Interpretation of Articles 43 EC and 49 EC — Games of chance — Collection of bets on sporting events — Licensing requirement — Exclusion of certain operators by reason of their type of corporate form — Requirement of police authorisation — Criminal penalties)

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/23

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 March 2007 — (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Lecce (Italy)) — Criminal proceedings against Aniello Gallo, Gianluca Damonte
   (Case C-191/06) (1)

   (Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure - Freedom of establishment - Freedom to provide services - Interpretation of Articles 43 EC and 49 EC - Games of chance - Collection of bets on sporting events - Licensing requirement - Exclusion of certain operators by reason of their type of corporate form - Requirement of police authorisation - Criminal penalties)
   (2007/C 96/41)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Tribunale di Lecce (Italy)
   Criminal proceedings against
   Aniello Gallo, Gianluca Damonte
   Action
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale di Lecce — Interpretation of Articles 31, 43, 49 and 81 to 86 EC — National law making the activity of collecting bets subject to prior authorisation
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               National legislation which prohibits the pursuit of the activities of collecting, taking, booking and forwarding offers of bets, in particular bets on sporting events, without a licence or a police authorisation issued by the Member State concerned, constitutes a restriction on the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services, provided for in Articles 43 EC and 49 EC respectively.

               2.

               It is for the national courts to determine whether, in so far as national legislation limits the number of operators active in the betting and gaming sector, it genuinely contributes to the objective of preventing the exploitation of activities in that sector for criminal or fraudulent purposes.

               3.

               Articles 43 EC and 49 EC must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which excludes — and, moreover, continues to exclude — from the betting and gaming sector operators in the form of companies whose shares are quoted on the regulated markets.

               4.

               Articles 43 EC and 49 EC must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which imposes a criminal penalty on persons such as the defendants in the main proceedings for pursuing the organised activity of collecting bets without a licence or a police authorisation as required under the national legislation, where those persons were unable to obtain licences or authorisations because that Member State, in breach of Community law, refused to grant licences or authorisations to such persons.

      (1)  OJ C 165, 15.7.2006.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 19 February 1998 in Case T-3/97: Anna Maria Campogrande v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Vacancy notice - Level of the post to be filled - Appointment to a grade A 4/A 5 post of head of unit - Illegality of the decision of the Commission of 19 July 1988 - Rejection of application for post)

text:
C 113/14              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  11.4.98
the decision of the Central Staff Committee of the                  2. orders the parties to bear their own costs.
Commission rejecting the proposals of Mr Chambellant
concerning appointments to organs set up under the Staff            (1) OJ C 74, 8.3.1997.
Regulations and to administrative bodies, and, in so far as
may be necessary, annulment of the decision of the
Commission expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint
Ð the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber),
composed of: P. Lindh, President, and K. Lenaerts and
J. D. Cooke, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the
                                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Registrar, has given a judgment on 19 February 1998, in
which it:                                                                                of 19 February 1998
                                                                    in Case T-196/97: Donato Continolo v. Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities (1)
1. declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the
     present case,                                                  (Officials Ð Thermal cure Ð Article 59 of the Staff
                                                                             Regulations Ð Sick leave Ð Special leave)
                                                                                (98/C 113/35)
2. orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to
     pay half of the applicant's costs, and the applicant to
     bear the other half of his own costs.                                          (Language of the case: French)
                                                                    In Case T-196/97: Donato Continolo, an official of the
(1) OJ C 388, 21.12.1996.
                                                                    Commission of the European Communities, represented
                                                                    by Jean-NoeÈl Louis, Thierry Demaseure, Ariane Tornel
                                                                    and FrancËoise Parmentier, of the Brussels Bar, with an
                                                                    address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
                                                                    Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 rue de Cessange, v.
                                                                    Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
                                                                    Christine Berardis-Kayser and Florence Duvieusart-
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                    Clotuche) Ð application for annulment of the decision of
                     of 19 February 1998                            the Commission of 24 June 1996 not to grant the
                                                                    applicant additional leave for the purposes of undergoing
in Case T-3/97: Anna Maria Campogrande v. Commission
                                                                    a thermal cure, as confirmed by the decision of 30 January
              of the European Communities (1)
                                                                    1997 rejecting the applicant's complaint Ð the Court of
(Officials Ð Vacancy notice Ð Level of the post to be               First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: P. Lindh,
filled Ð Appointment to a grade A 4/A 5 post of head of             President, and K. Lenaerts and J. D. Cooke, Judges; A.
unit Ð Illegality of the decision of the Commission of              Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
      19 July 1988 Ð Rejection of application for post)             judgment on 19 February 1998, in which it:
                        (98/C 113/34)
                                                                    1. dismisses the application,
               (Language of the case: French)                       2. orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                                                                    (1) OJ C 7, 10.1.1998.
In Case T-3/97: Anna Maria Campogrande, an official
of the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Marc-Albert Lucas, of the LieÁge Bar, with
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Evelyne Korn, 21 avenue de Nassau, v. Commission of the
European Communities (Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia and
Denis Waelbroeck) Ð application for annulment of the                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
decision of the Commission appointing Mr Cesare De                                         of 4 March 1998
Montis to the post of Head of Unit 2 (Andean Pact) of
                                                                    in Case T-146/96: Maria da GracËa De Abreu v. Court of
Directorate A (Latin America) of Directorate-General IB
                                                                              Justice of the European Communities (1)
(External relations: Southern Mediterranean, Middle and
Near East, Latin America, South and South-East Asia and             (Probationary officials Ð Appointment of a former
North-South Cooperation) and of the Commission's                    member of the temporary staff Ð Maintenance of
decision rejecting the applicant's application for that post        seniority in step Ð Principle of equality of treatment Ð
Ð the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber),                                         Objection of illegality)
composed of: P. Lindh, President, and K. Lenaerts and                                       (98/C 113/36)
J. D. Cooke, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 19 February 1998, in
which it:                                                                           (Language of the case: French)
                                                                    In Case T-146/96: Maria da GracËa De Abreu, an official
1. dismisses the action,                                            of the Court of Justice of the European Communities,


title: Action brought on 13 February 1996 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain (Case C-40/96)

text:
30 . 3 . 96           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 95/ 11
dues arrangements previously in force — a genuine internal           13 February 1996 by the Commission of the European
charge which is not discriminatory and is consistent with the        Communities, represented by H. Van Lier, Legal Adviser,
letter and spirit of the Treaty establishing the European            and R. Vidal , of its Legal Service,with an address for service
Community ?                                                          in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of
                                                                     its Legal Service, C 252, Wagner Centre .
(M OJ No L 399 , 30 . 12 . 1989, p . 46 .
                                                                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                     1 . declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the
                                                                           or, in the subsidiary, by failing to notify, within
Arrondissementsrechtbank te Amsterdam by decision of                       the prescribed period, the laws, regulations or
that court of 1 February 1996 in the case of Koninklijke                   administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Vereeniging ter Bevordering van de Belangen des                            Council Directive 90/377/EEC ( ! ) of 29 June 1990
Boekhandels v. ( 1 ) Free Record Shop BV and ( 2 ) Free
                                                                           concerning a Community procedure to improve the
                  Record Shop Holding NV
                                                                           transparency of gas and electricity prices charged to
                        ( Case C-39/96 )                                   industrial end-users, the Kingdom of Spain'Has failed to
                          ( 96/C 95/ 19 )                                  fulfil its obligations under Articles 5 and 189 of the
                                                                           Treaty establishing the European Community;
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of
the European Communities by a decision of the                        2 . order the defendant to pay the costs .
Arrondissementsrechtbank te Amsterdam ( District Court,
Amsterdam ) of 1 February 1996 , which was received at the           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Court Registry on 13 February 1996 , for a preliminary
ruling in the case of Koninklijke Vereeniging ter Bevordering        The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third
van de Belangen des Boekhandels ( Royal Association for the          paragraph of Article 189 and the first paragraph of Article 5
Promotion of the Interests of the Book Trade ) v. ( 1 ) Free         of the EC Treaty requires Member States to adopt the
Record Shop BV and ( 2 ) Free Record Shop Holding NV on              measures necessary to transpose directives addressed to
the following questions :                                            them into their domestic law before the expiry of the period
                                                                     prescribed for doing so and forthwith to inform the
( 1 ) If an agreement between undertakings or a decision by          Commission thereof. That period expired on 1 July 1991
      an association of undertakings to regulate competition         without the Kingdom of Spain having brought into force the
      came into existence prior to the entry into force of           necessary provisions concerning transparency of gas prices
      Regulation No 17/62 (*) and was notified to the                charged to end-users .
      Commission in good time pursuant to the provisions of
      that Regulation, does that agreement or decision               (') OJ No L 185 , 17. 7. 1990 , p . 16 .
      continue to benefit from the 'provisional validity'
      which notified cartels enjoy according to the case-law
      of the Court of Justice if the Commission has not
      reacted in any way to that notification ?
( 2 ) If the answer is yes : does that 'provisional validity'        Action brought on 14 February 1996 by the Commission of
      continue for an unlimited period ? If the answer is              the European Communities against the French Republic
      no : on what circumstances will the expiry of the                                         Case C-43/96 )
      'provisional validity' then depend ?                                                       ( 96/C 95/21 )
( 3 ) Does the 'provisional validity' apply solely to the
      agreement or decision, as referred to in Question 1 , in       An action against the French Republic was brought before
      the form in which it was notified, or does it also apply       the Court of Justice on 14 February 1996 by the
      to agreements and decisions which have since come              Commission of the European Communities, represented by
      into existence and continue the same cartel agreements         Helene Michard and Enrico Traversa, of its Legal Service,
      in an amended form, in so far as they do not involve any       acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg
      extension or reinforcement of the cartel agreements in         at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre ,
      the light of the operation and realization of the              Kirchberg.
      common market ?
                                                                     The Commission of the European Communities claims that
(') OJ, English Special Edition 1959— 1962, p. 204 .                 the Court should :
                                                                     ( 1 ) declare that, by maintaining in force legislation
                                                                            excluding the deductibility of VAT in respect of means
Action brought on 13 February 1996 by the Commission                        of transport constituting the actual tools of the trade of
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of                          the taxable person, the French Republic has failed to
                               Spain                                        fulfil its obligations under the Sixth Council Directive
                        ( Case C-40/96 )                                    77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of
                          ( 96/C 95/20 )                                    the laws of the Member States relating to turnover
                                                                            taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before                   basis of assessment ( ! ), in particular the provisions of
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                         Article 17 ( 2 ) thereof;


title: Case T-586/13: Action brought on 8 November 2013 — H.P. Gauff Ingenieure v OHIM — Gauff (Gauff THE ENGINEERS WITH THE BROADER VIEW)

text:
               25.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/27

         Action brought on 8 November 2013 — H.P. Gauff Ingenieure v OHIM — Gauff (Gauff THE ENGINEERS WITH THE BROADER VIEW)
   (Case T-586/13)
   2014/C 24/49
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: H.P. Gauff Ingenieure GmbH & Co. KG — JBG (Nuremberg, Germany) (represented by: G. Schneider-Rothhaar, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Gauff GmbH & Co. Engineering KG (Nuremberg, Germany)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision taken by the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 September 2013 (Appeal Case R 118/2003-1);

               —

               refer the case back to OHIM with the recommendation to restore it to its previous state;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs including those of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: H.P. Gauff Ingenieure GmbH & Co. KG — JBG

      Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark ‘THE ENGINEERS WITH THE BROADER VIEW’ for goods and services in Classes 11, 19, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41 and 42 — application for Community trade mark No 10 028 082

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Gauff GmbH & Co. Engineering KG

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the German word sign and the Community word sign ‘Gauff’ and the German figurative mark and the Community figurative mark ‘GAUFF’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42 and 44

      Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld in part

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: rejection of the application for restoring the case to its previous state and rejection of the action as being inadmissible

      Pleas in law: infringement of Article 81 of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case C-43/01 P: Appeal brought on 1 February 2001 by Sandro Cognigni against the order made on 30 November 2000 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber) in Case T-314/00 Sandro Cognigni vo Commission of the European Communities

text:
24.3.2001              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 95/5
Reference for a preliminary ruling form the Kilpailuneu-               Must the words ‘put to genuine use’ in Article 12(1) of
vosto by order of that tribunal of 14 December 2000 in                 Directive 89/104/EEC (1) be interpreted in the manner set out
the case of Arkkitehtuuritoimisto Riitta Korhonen Oy,                  in paragraph 3.4 above (2) and, if the answer is in the negative,
Arkkitehtitoimisto Pentti Toivanen Oy and Rakennuttaja-                on the basis of which (other) criterion must the meaning of
    toimisto Vilho Tervomaa v Varkauden Taitotalo Oy                   ‘genuine use’ be determined?
                          (Case C-18/01)                               Can there be ‘genuine use’ as referred to above also where no
                                                                       new goods are traded under the trade mark but other activities
                          (2001/C 95/07)                               are engaged in as set out in subparagraphs (v) and (vi) of
                                                                       paragraph 3.1 above (3)?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Kilpailuneuvosto
(Competition Council), Finland, of 14 December 2000, which
was received at the Court Registry on 16 January 2001, for a           (1) OJ L 40 of 11.2.1989.
preliminary ruling in the case of Arkkitehtuuritoimisto Riitta         (2) The question whether a particular use can be regarded as ‘genuine
Korhonen Oy, Arkkitehtitoimisto Pentti Toivanen Oy and                     use’ can be answered only (i) by taking into consideration all the
Rakennuttajatoimisto Vilho Tervomaa v Varkauden Taitotalo                  facts and circumstances specific to the case whereby (ii) the
Oy on the following question:                                              decisive factor is whether all the facts and circumstances specific
                                                                           to the case, when viewed in connection with one another and in
                                                                           the context of what is regarded as usual and commercially justified
Is a share company which a town owns and in which the town                 in the relevant sector of the trade, create the impression that the
exercises control to be regarded as a contracting authority                use serves to find or preserve a market for goods and services
within the meaning of Article 1(b) of Council Directive                    under that trade mark and not simply to maintain the trade mark,
92/50/EEC relating to the coordination of procedures for the               and whereby (iii) account must generally be taken, as regards
award of public service contracts (1), if the company acquires             these facts and circumstances, of the kind, extent, frequency,
design and project management services for a building project              regularity and duration of the use in conjunction with the kind of
comprising offices to be leased to undertakings?                           goods or service and the kind and size of the undertaking.
                                                                       (3) Sale of components and extinguishing compositions for fire-
As a supplementary question, the Kilpailuneuvosto enquires                 extinguishing apparatus covered by the trade mark MINIMAX to
whether it affects the decision on the point that the town’s               undertakings which maintained similar apparatus. Maintaining,
                                                                           checking, regauging, repairing and overhauling of fire-
building project endeavours to create the conditions for
                                                                           extinguishing apparatus marked with the trade mark MINIMAX,
business activity to be carried on in the town.                            using stickers bearing the words ‘Gebruiksklaar Minimax’ (Read
                                                                           for use — Minimax).
As a second supplementary question, the Kilpailuneuvosto
enquires whether it affects the decision on the point that the
offices to be built are leased to one undertaking only.
(1) OJ L 209 of 24.7.1992, p. 1.
                                                                       Appeal brought on 1 February 2001 by Sandro Cognigni
                                                                       against the order made on 30 November 2000 by the
                                                                       Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                       (First Chamber) in Case T-314/00 Sandro Cognigni vo
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der                         Commission of the European Communities
Nederlanden by order of 26 January 2001 in the case of
         Ansul B.V. and Ajax Brandbeveiliging B.V.
                                                                                (Case C-43/01 P)
                          (Case C-40/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 95/09)
                          (2001/C 95/08)
                                                                       An appeal has been brought before the Court of Justice of the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 European Communities on 1 February 2001 by Sandro
European Communities by order of 26 January 2001 by                    Cognigni, represented by Walter Massucci, of the Fermo (AP)
the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the                    Bar, having Chambers in Pedaso, 5 Via Giovanni XXIII, against
Netherlands), which was received at the Court Registry on              the order made on 30 November 2000 by the Court of First
31 January 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Ansul         Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber) in Case
B.V. and Ajax Brandbeveiliging B.V. on the following questions:        T-314/00 Sandro Cognigni v Commission of the EC.
 ---pagebreak--- C 95/6                  EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      24.3.2001
The appellant claims that the Court should:                                    or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                               Council Directive 95/63/EC of 5th December 1995 (1)
—     Set aside the order under appeal and refer the case to the               amending Directive 89/655/EEC (2) concerning the mini-
      Court having jurisdiction in the matter;                                 mum safety and health requirements for the use of work
                                                                               equipment by workers at work and/or failing to inform
—     Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings                 the Commission thereof and
      before both Community Courts.
                                                                         —     condemn Ireland to bear the costs of the procedure.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
(1)    The legal definition of the action at first instance
                                                                         Article 249 EC, under which a directive shall be binding as to
       Having regard to the action at first instance, and bearing        the result to be achieved, upon each Member State, carries by
       in mind the fact that the formal issue of the legal               implication an obligation on the Member States to observe the
       definition thereof cannot be regarded as precluding the           period for compliance laid down in the directive. That period
       admissibility of an action, it appears permissible to argue       expired on 5 December 1998 without Ireland having enacted
       that the grounds set out on that point in the order under         the provisions necessary to comply with the directive referred
       appeal ought to be censured in their entirety.                    to in the conclusions of the Commission.
(2)    The jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance                   (1) OJ L 335, 30.12.1995, p. 28.
                                                                         (2) OJ L 393, 30.12.1989, p. 13.
       It is clear that, since this case involves a dispute
       between a Community institution and the member of a
       consultative committee established by that institution,
       the Court of First Instance has jurisdiction to deal with
       the dispute.
       It is further evident that, pursuant to Article 91 of             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
       the Staff Regulations applicable to officials and other           Siena, by order of that court of 26 January 2001 in
       servants of the European Communities, the Court of                the case of Milena Castellani v Istituto Nazionale della
       Justice has jurisdiction in any dispute between the                                  Previdenza Sociale (INPS)
       Community and ‘any person to whom these Staff
       Regulations apply’. Since the Court of First Instance
       ruled that it lacked jurisdiction in favour of the Court of                                 (Case C-50/01)
       Justice, the Court of First Instance ought, of its own
       motion, to have ensured that the application was                                            (2001/C 95/11)
       forwarded to the Court having jurisdiction in the matter.
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by an order of the Tribunale di Siena
                                                                         (District Court, Siena) of 26 January 2001, which was received
                                                                         at the Court Registry on 5 February 2001, for a preliminary
                                                                         ruling in the case of Milena Castellani v Istituto Nazionale della
Action brought on 5 February 2001 by the Commission                      Previdenza Sociale (INPS), on the following questions:
        of the European Communities against Ireland
                                                                         Is the rule precluding aggregation of the accounting value of
                          (Case C-48/01)                                 the special supplementary pay with the payments made to a
                                                                         worker in the reference period (Article 2(4) of Legislative
                          (2001/C 95/10)                                 Decree No 80/1992) compatible — inter alia in the light of
                                                                         past ruling of the Court of Justice concerning that decree —
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of                with EEC Directive 987/80 (1), and in particular:
Justice of the European Communities on 5 February 2001 by
the Commission of the European Communities, represented                  (1) Can that non-aggregability be regarded as conforming
by Ms Nicola Yerrell, Member of its legal Service, acting as                   with the purpose of the directive which appears
agent, with an address for service at the office of Mr Carlos                  (Article 3(1)) to be to ensure the payment of outstanding
Gómez de la Cruz, also a member of its Legal Service, Centre                  claims in respect of wages arising within a specified time
Wagner, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.                                                 span (Article 3(2)) and in respect of a certain period
                                                                               (Article 4(1) and (2))? or
The Applicant requests that the Court should:
                                                                         (2) Does that non-aggregability reflect a rule concerning
—     find that Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under             assistance, not conforming with the social criterion on
      the EC Treaty by failing to adopt the laws, regulations                  which Directive 987/80 is based?