title: Case C-12/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 31 January 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Dublin Metropolitan District Court — Ireland) — Denise McDonagh v Ryanair Ltd (Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Notion of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ — Obligation to provide assistance to passengers in the event of cancellation of a flight due to ‘extraordinary circumstances’ — Volcanic eruption leading to the closure of air space — Eruption of the Icelandic volcano Eyjafjallajökull)

text:
               23.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/2

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 31 January 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Dublin Metropolitan District Court — Ireland) — Denise McDonagh v Ryanair Ltd
   (Case C-12/11) (1)

   (Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Notion of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ - Obligation to provide assistance to passengers in the event of cancellation of a flight due to ‘extraordinary circumstances’ - Volcanic eruption leading to the closure of air space - Eruption of the Icelandic volcano Eyjafjallajökull)
   2013/C 86/02
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Dublin Metropolitan District Court

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Plaintiff: Denise McDonagh

      Defendant: Ryanair Ltd

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Dublin Metropolitan District Court — Interpretation and validity of Articles 5 and 9 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1) — Notion of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ for the purposes of the regulation — Scope — Flight cancellation owing to the closure of European air space following the eruption of the Icelandic volcano Eyjafjallajökull

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, must be interpreted as meaning that circumstances such as the closure of part of European airspace as a result of the eruption of the Eyjafjallajökull volcano constitute ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of that regulation which do not release air carriers from their obligation laid down in Articles 5(1)(b) and 9 of Regulation No 261/2004.

               2.

               Articles 5(1)(b) and 9 of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of cancellation of a flight due to ‘extraordinary circumstances’ of a duration such as that in the main proceedings, the obligation to provide care to air passengers laid down in those provisions must be complied with, and the validity of those provisions is not affected.
               However, an air passenger may only obtain, by way of compensation for the failure of the air carrier to comply with its obligation referred to in Articles 5(1)(b) and 9 of Regulation No 261/2004 to provide care, reimbursement of the amounts which, in the light of the specific circumstances of each case, proved necessary, appropriate and reasonable to make up for the shortcomings of the air carrier in the provision of care to that passenger, a matter which is for the national court to assess.

      (1)  OJ C 80, 12.3.2011.


title: Case T-732/15: Action brought on 14 December 2015 — ICA Laboratories e.a. v Commission

text:
               29.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/22

         Action brought on 14 December 2015 — ICA Laboratories e.a. v Commission
   (Case T-732/15)
   (2016/C 078/33)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: ICA Laboratories Close Corp. (Century City, South Africa), ICA International Chemicals (Proprietary) Ltd (Century City), ICA Developments (Proprietary) Ltd (Century City) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem and R. Crespi, lawyers, and P. Sellar, solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Declare the application admissible and well-founded;

               —

               Annul the Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/1910 of 21 October 2015 amending Annexes III and V to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels of guazatine in or on certain products (1); and

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicants allege that by adopting Regulation (EU) 2015/1910 imposing a maximum residue limit of 0,05 mg/kg of the active substance guazatine in or on certain products, the Commission has committed infringements of European Union law and failed to apply general principles of European Union law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission frustrated the legitimate expectations of the South African government and of the applicants and infringed legally binding rules under Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 (2) by failing to take into account the available scientific and technical information.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission has committed a series of manifest errors of assessment in relying upon two opinions of the European Food Safety Authority, the contents of these opinions revealing those errors.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission has infringed the applicants’ rights of defence. The Commission has relied on an alleged scientific concern on which no information is given either in the contested regulation or in the documents on which the contested regulation is based.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested regulation is disproportionate. The Commission has chosen the most onerous measure where other more proportionate measures were available to it.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/1910 of 21 October 2015 amending Annexes III and V to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels of guazatine in or on certain products (OJ 2015 L 280, p. 2).

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 February 2005 on maximum residue levels of pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and animal origin and amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC (OJ 2005 L 70, p. 1).


title: Case T-447/10: Action brought on 21 September 2010 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Court of justice

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/44

         Action brought on 21 September 2010 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Court of justice
   (Case T-447/10)
   ()
   2010/C 346/89
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and M. Dermitzakis, lawyers)

      Defendant: Court of justice

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the defendant’s decision to reject the bids of the applicant, filed in response to the open call for tenders CJ 7/09 “Public contracts for the provision of information technology services” (1), and all further related decisions of the defendant including the one to award the respective contracts to the successful contractors;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the applicant’s damages suffered on account of the tendering procedure in question for an amount of EUR 5 000 000

               —

               order the defendant to pay the applicant’s damages suffered on account of the loss of opportunity and damage to its reputation and credibility of the amount of EUR 500 000;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the applicant’s legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application even if the current application is rejected.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In the present case the applicant seeks the annulment of the defendant’s decision of 12 July 2010 to reject its bids submitted in response to a call for an open tender CJ 7/09 for the services of information technology and to award the contracts to the successful contractors. The applicant further requests compensation for the alleged damages in account of the tender procedure.
   In support of its claims the applicant puts forward the following grounds.
   First, the applicant argues that the contracting authority failed to observe the principle of non discrimination of candidate tenderers since several of the winning tenderers did not comply with the exclusion criteria and thus has infringed Articles 93 and 94 of the financial regulation (2), Article 133 of the implementing rules as well as the principle of good administration.
   Further, the applicant submits that the defendant infringed the provisions of Article 100(2) of the financial regulation in the context of both lots, i.e. the obligation to state reasons by refusing to provide sufficient justification or explanation to the applicant. Especially, the characteristics and relative advantages of the tender selected were not adequately provided. Only a simple technical mark on the applicant’s offer under each criterion as well as vague terms were provided, while for the winning tenderers it was only mentioned that its offer was considered as of higher quality.
   Third, the applicant argues that the defendant did not ensure a fair treatment to all tenderers when inviting them to visit its premises since this exercise did not allow them to compete in a fair manner against the contractor who finally won this call for tenders.
   Finally, the applicant contends that by using criteria other than those allowed for in Article 138 of the financial regulation and by processing data which were not proposed by the applicant itself for award and by mixing selection and award criteria and not using criteria linked to the economic advantage of the offer, the defendant infringed Article 97 of the financial regulation and Article 138 of the implementing rules.

      (1)  OJ 2009/S 217-312293

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1)


title: Case C-132/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck (Austria) lodged on 18 March 2011 — Tyrolean Airways Tiroler Luftfahrt Gesellschaft mbH v Betriebsrat Bord der Tyrolean Airways Tiroler Luftfahrt Gesellschaft mbH

text:
               25.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 186/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck (Austria) lodged on 18 March 2011 — Tyrolean Airways Tiroler Luftfahrt Gesellschaft mbH v Betriebsrat Bord der Tyrolean Airways Tiroler Luftfahrt Gesellschaft mbH
   (Case C-132/11)
   2011/C 186/19
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Tyrolean Airways Tiroler Luftfahrt Gesellschaft mbH

      Respondent: Betriebsrat Bord der Tyrolean Airways Tiroler Luftfahrt Gesellschaft mbH

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does European Union law as currently applicable, in particular in Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (in conjunction with Article 6(1) TEU), the general legal principle of European Law (Article 6(3) TEU) relating to the prohibition of age discrimination, and Articles 1, 2 and 6 of Directive 2000/78/EC, (1) preclude a national collective agreement which, in making grade classifications under the collective agreement, and thus determining the level of remuneration, discriminates indirectly against older workers by taking account only of their skills and knowledge which they have acquired as air stewards or stewardesses with one airline but not the substantively identical skills and knowledge which they have acquired with another airline within the same group? Does this also apply to an employment relationship which was entered into before 1 December 2009?

               2.

               Can a national court treat as void and disapply a clause of an individual employment contract which indirectly infringes Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the general legal principle of European Union law relating to the prohibition of age discrimination, and/or Articles 1, 2 and 6 of Directive 2000/78/EC, by analogy with the case of Rieser
                   (2) and with the case-law concerning agreements breaching antitrust rules as in the case of Béguelin
                   (3) on grounds of the horizontal direct effect of the fundamental rights of the European Union?

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

      (2)  Case C-157/02 ECR [2004] I-1477.

      (3)  Case C-22/71 ECR [1971] 949.


title: Case T-639/13: Action brought on 29 November 2013 — Watch TV v Council

text:
               15.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/39

         Action brought on 29 November 2013 — Watch TV v Council
   (Case T-639/13)
   2014/C 45/68
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Watch TV (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: F. de Visscher and M. von Kuegelgen, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Council of the European Union of 30 September 2013;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By its action, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Council of the European Union not to accept its tender submitted in respect of Lot No 1 in Contract UCA 190/11 for the provision of ‘audiovisual and multimedia services to the Council of the European Union/European Council’ (OJ 2012/S 26-041228).
   In support of its action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 89(1) of the Financial Regulation (1) and of Articles 131(5), 135(2) and 146(3) of the Regulation implementing the Financial Regulation, (2) in view of the fact that the Council awarded the contract to a tenderer whose tender allegedly does not meet the obligatory minimum requirements relating to the suitability of candidates, as set out in the technical specifications. The applicant claims that the Council ought, therefore, to have automatically rejected the tender which it accepted.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 357, p. 1).


title: Case T-227/10: Action brought on 18 May 2010 — Banco Santander v Commission

text:
               17.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/28

         Action brought on 18 May 2010 — Banco Santander v Commission
   (Case T-227/10)
   2010/C 195/43
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Banco Santander, SA (Santander, Spain) (represented by: J. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, M. Muñoz de Juan, R. Calvo Salinero, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul Article 1(1) of the contested decision inasmuch as it declares that Article 12(5) of the consolidated text of the Law on Corporation Tax (texto refundido de la Ley del Impuesto sobre Sociedades, TRLIS) involves State aid elements;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Article 1(1) of the contested decision inasmuch as it declares that Article 12(5) TRLIS involves State aid elements when it applies to acquisitions of shares which entail the acquisition of control;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision inasmuch as it applies the recovery order to operations which occurred prior to the publication in the Official Journal of the European Union of the final decision which is the object of the present action; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The decision against which these proceedings are brought is the same as that contested in Cases T-219/10 Autogrill España v Commission; T-221/10 Iberdrola v Commission; and T-225/10 Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria v Commission.
   The pleas in law and the principal arguments are similar to those relied on in those cases.
   In particular, various errors of law in the legal classification of the measures as State aid, in the identification of the beneficiary of that measure and in the establishment of the deadline for recognising legitimate expectations are alleged. The last ground is raised by the applicant inasmuch as the contested decision recognises the existence of legitimate expectations, distinguishing, at the same time, between such operations carried out from the entry into force of the measure to the date of publication of the decision to initiate of the formal investigation procedure and those carried out subsequently.


title: Case C-33/07: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 July 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Dâmbovița — Romania) — Ministerul Administrației și Internelor — Direcția Generală de Pașapoarte București v Gheorghe Jipa (Citizenship of the Union — Article 18 EC — Directive 2004/38/EC — Right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States)

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/11

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 July 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Dâmbovița — Romania) — Ministerul Administrației și Internelor — Direcția Generală de Pașapoarte București v Gheorghe Jipa
   (Case C-33/07) (1)

   (Citizenship of the Union - Article 18 EC - Directive 2004/38/EC - Right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States)
   (2008/C 223/16)
   Language of the case: Romanian
   Referring court
   Tribunal Dâmbovița
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ministerul Administrației și Internelor — Direcția Generală de Pașapoarte București

      Defendant: Gheorghe Jipa
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Dâmbovița — Interpretation of Article 18 EC and Article 27 of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77)
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 18 EC and Article 27 of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC do not preclude national legislation that allows the right of a national of a Member State to travel to another Member State to be restricted, in particular on the ground that he has previously been repatriated from the latter Member State on account of his ‘illegal residence’ there, provided that the personal conduct of that national constitutes a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of society and that the restrictive measure envisaged is appropriate to ensure the achievement of the objective it pursues and does not go beyond what is necessary to attain it. It is for the national court to establish whether that is so in the case before it.

      (1)  OJ C 140, 23.6.2006.


title: Case T-502/12: Action brought on 19 November 2012 — Ferring v OHIM — Tillotts Pharma (OCTASA)

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/62

         Action brought on 19 November 2012 — Ferring v OHIM — Tillotts Pharma (OCTASA)
   (Case T-502/12)
   2013/C 26/122
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Ferring BV (Haarlem, Netherlands) (represented by: I. Fowler, Solicitor, A. Renck and J. Fuhrmann, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tillotts Pharma AG (Ziefen, Switzerland)

      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 6 September 2012 in case R 1216/2011-4; and.

               —

               Order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the Defendant, or — in the event that the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal intervenes on the side of the Defendant — that they be borne jointly by the Defendant and the Intervener.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘OCTASA’, for goods in class 5 — Community trade mark application No 8169881

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Benelux trade mark registration No 377513 for the word mark ‘PENTASA’, for among others goods in class 5; German trade mark registration No 1181393 for the word mark ‘PENTASA’, for goods in class 5; Portuguese trade mark registration No 218845 for the word mark ‘PENTASA’, for goods in class 5; Danish trade mark registration No VR 02.430 1980 for the word mark ‘PENTASA’, for goods in class 5; Finnish trade mark registration No 94367 for the word mark ‘PENTASA’, for goods in class 5; UK trade mark registration No 1131049 for the word mark ‘PENTASA’, for goods in class 5; Spanish trade mark registration No 1766091 for the word mark ‘PENTASA’, for goods in class 5; International trade mark registration No 605880 for the word mark ‘PENTASA’, for goods in class 5; Benelux trade mark registration No 430245 for the word mark ‘OCTOSTIM’, for goods in class 5; German trade mark registration No 2024737 for the word mark ‘OCTOSTIM’, for goods in class 5; Finnish trade mark registration No 95782 for the word mark ‘OCTOSTIM’, for goods in class 5; French trade mark registration No 1537576 for the word mark ‘OCTOSTIM’, for goods in class 5; UK trade mark registration No 1262052 for the word mark ‘OCTOSTIM’, for goods in class 5; Greek trade mark registration No 129507-A for the word mark ‘OCTOSTIM’, for goods in class 5; Irish trade mark registration No 175341 for the word mark ‘OCTOSTIM’, for goods in class 5; Portuguese trade mark registration No 246194 for the word mark ‘OCTOSTIM’, for goods in class 5; Danish trade mark registration No VR 198601124 for the word mark ‘OCTOSTIM’, for goods in class 5; Swedish trade mark registration No 2000103 for the word mark ‘OCTOSTIM’, for goods in class 5

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law:

               —

               Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Council Regulation No 207/2009

               —

               Infringement of Rule 80(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95.


title: Case C-262/16: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 12 May 2016 – Shields & Sons Partnership v The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

text:
               18.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/30

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 12 May 2016 – Shields & Sons Partnership v The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
   (Case C-262/16)
   (2016/C 260/38)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Shields & Sons Partnership

      Defendant: The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

      Questions referred

               1.

               With regard to the common flat-rate scheme for farmers which is established by Chapter 2 of Title XII of Council Directive (EC) 2006/112/EC (1), is Article 296(2) to be interpreted as providing an exhaustive regime as to when a Member State is able to exclude a farmer from the common agricultural flat-rate scheme? In particular:

                           1.1.

                           Is a Member State only able to exclude farmers from the common flat-rate scheme for farmers pursuant to Article 296(2)?

                           1.2.

                           Is a Member State also able to exclude a farmer from the common flat-rate scheme for farmers using Article 299?

                           1.3.

                           Does the principle of fiscal neutrality give a Member State a right to exclude a farmer from the common flat-rate scheme for farmers?

                           1.4.

                           Do Member States have an entitlement to exclude farmers from the common flat-rate scheme for farmers on any other grounds?

               2.

               How is the term ‘categories of farmers’ in Article 296(2) of Council Directive (EC) 2006/112/EC to be interpreted? In particular:

                           2.1.

                           Must a relevant category of farmers be capable of being identified by reference to objective characteristics?

                           2.2.

                           Can a relevant category of farmers be capable of being identified by reference to economic considerations?

                           2.3.

                           What level of precision is required in identifying a category of farmers which a Member State has purported to exclude?

                           2.4.

                           Does it entitle a Member State to treat as a relevant category ‘farmers who are found to be recovering substantially more as members of the flat-rate scheme than they would if they were registered for VAT’?

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


title: Case C-3/05: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of  16 February 2006  (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d'appello di Cagliari) — Gaetano Verdoliva v J.M. Van der Hoeven BV, Banco di Sardegna, San Paolo IMI SpA (Brussels Convention — Judgment authorising the enforcement of a judgment given in another Contracting State — Failure of, or defective, service — Notice — Time for appealing)

text:
               3.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/23

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 February 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d'appello di Cagliari) — Gaetano Verdoliva v J.M. Van der Hoeven BV, Banco di Sardegna, San Paolo IMI SpA
   (Case C-3/05) (1)

   (Brussels Convention - Judgment authorising the enforcement of a judgment given in another Contracting State - Failure of, or defective, service - Notice - Time for appealing)
   (2006/C 131/40)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Corte d'appello di Cagliari
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Gaetano Verdoliva

      Defendants: J.M. Van der Hoeven BV, Banco di Sardegna, San Paolo IMI SpA

      Intervener: Pubblico Ministero
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Corte d'appello di Cagliari — Interpretation of Article 36 of the Brussels Convention — Enforcement of judgments — Defective service of a decision authorising enforcement — Meaning of ‘notice of procedural documents’
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 36 of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the accession of the Republic of Greece and the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic, is to be interpreted as requiring due service of the decision authorising enforcement in accordance with the procedural rules of the Contracting State in which enforcement is sought, and therefore, in cases of failure of, or defective, service of the decision authorising enforcement, the mere fact that the party against whom enforcement is sought has notice of that decision is not sufficient to cause time to run for the purposes of the time-limit fixed in that article.

      (1)  OJ C 69, 19.03.2005.


title: Case C-120/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 20 March 2008 — Bayerischer Brauerbund e.V. v Bavaria N.V.

text:
               2.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 197/2

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 20 March 2008 — Bayerischer Brauerbund e.V. v Bavaria N.V.
   (Case C-120/08)
   (2008/C 197/02)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesgerichtshof
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Bayerischer Brauerbund e.V.

      Defendant: Bavaria N.V.
   Questions referred

               1.

               The following questions are referred to the Court of Justice of the European Communities for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1). Does Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 apply in the case where the protected indication has been validly registered in accordance with the simplified procedure under Article 17 of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (2)?

               2.

                           (a)

                           If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, what date should be taken as the basis for determining the classification in time of the protected geographical indication within the meaning of Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006?

                           (b)

                           If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative, what provision governs the conflict between a geographical indication validly registered in accordance with the simplified procedure under Article 17 of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 and a trade mark, and what determines the classification in time of the protected geographical indication?

               3.

               May the national provisions on the protection of geographical designations be applied in the case where the indication ‘Bayerisches Bier’ fulfils the conditions for registration (3) under Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 and Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, but Regulation (EC) No 1347/2001 is invalid?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 93, p. 12.

      (2)  OJ 1992 L 208, p. 1.

      (3)  OJ 1992 L 182, p. 3.


title: Case C-451/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo (Bulgaria) lodged on 27 July 2017 — Walltopia AD v Direktor na Teritorialna direktsia na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite — Veliko Tarnovo

text:
               2.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 330/9

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo (Bulgaria) lodged on 27 July 2017 — Walltopia AD v Direktor na Teritorialna direktsia na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite — Veliko Tarnovo
   (Case C-451/17)
   (2017/C 330/11)
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo (Bulgaria)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Walltopia AD

      Defendants: Direktor na Teritorialna direktsia na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite — Veliko Tarnovo

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 14(1) of Regulation No 987/2009 (1) of the European Parliament and the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems in conjunction with Article 12(1) of Regulation (EU) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems to be interpreted as meaning that a person who pursues an activity as an employed person is not subject to the legislation of the Member State where the company that recruited him is established if he was not an insured person in this Member State in accordance with the national legislation referred to in Article 1(l) of the basic Regulation immediately before the start of his employment?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question is in the negative, is it permissible for a national court, when interpreting the content and meaning of the term ‘is subject to’ in Article 14(1) of Regulation No 987/2009 and in Article 12(1) of Regulation No 883/2004, to take the citizenship of a Member State of the person into account when the employed person is in any case subject to the national legislation only on account of their citizenship?

               3.

               May — if the answer to the second question is also in the negative — the national court, when applying the term referred to in the second question, take into account the habitual and permanent residence of the person employed, within the meaning of Article 1(j) of Regulation No 883/2004?

               4.

               If the answer to the third question is also in the negative, what elements must be taken into account by the national court in determining the meaning of ‘is subject to … the legislation’ in Article 12(1) of the basic Regulation and Article 14(1) of Regulation [No 987/2009] in order to apply these provisions in accordance with their precise sense?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems (Text with relevance for the EEA and for Switzerland) (OJ 2009 L 284, p. 1).


title: Case C-225/07: Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 July 2008 — (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Landau/Isar (Germany)) — Criminal proceedings against Rainer Günther Möginger (First paragraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Directive 91/439/EEC — Mutual recognition of driving licences — Withdrawal of driving licence — Temporary ban on obtaining a new right to drive — Validity of a permit obtained in another Member State during the period of the ban)

text:
               8.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 285/11

         Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 July 2008 — (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Landau/Isar (Germany)) — Criminal proceedings against Rainer Günther Möginger
   (Case C-225/07) (1)

   (First paragraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Directive 91/439/EEC - Mutual recognition of driving licences - Withdrawal of driving licence - Temporary ban on obtaining a new right to drive - Validity of a permit obtained in another Member State during the period of the ban)
   (2008/C 285/18)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Amtsgericht Landau/Isar (Germany)
   Criminal proceedings against
   Rainer Günther Möginger
   Action
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Amtsgericht Landau/Isar — Interpretation of Article 8(2) and (4) of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences (OJ 1991 L 237, p. 1) — Non-recognition by the Member State of residence, on its territory, of a driving licence obtained in another Member State during the period of a temporary ban on applying for a new licence in the Member State of residence
   Operative part of the judgment
   Articles 1(2) and 8(2) and (4) of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 September 2003, must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude a Member State from refusing to recognise the validity of a driving licence issued by another Member State where the holder of that licence was, on the date the licence was issued, subject to a temporary ban on obtaining a new right to drive in the first Member State. In this respect, the fact that the question of validity arises after the date that marked the end of the period of the ban is irrelevant.

      (1)  OJ C 183, 4.8.2007


title: Case T-578/12: Action brought on 27 December 2012 — NIOC v Council

text:
               16.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/20

         Action brought on 27 December 2012 — NIOC v Council
   (Case T-578/12)
   2013/C 79/36
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: National Iran Oil Co. (NIOC) (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: J.-M. Thouvenin, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 of 15 October 2012, in so far as it concerns the applicant;

               —

               annul Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012, in so far as it concerns the applicant;

               —

               declare that Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 is inapplicable with regard to it;

               —

               declare that Decision 2012/635/CFSP is inapplicable with regard to it;

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law which in essence are identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-577/12 NIOC and Others v Council.


title: Case C-151/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesarbeitsgericht Schleswig-Holstein by order of that Court of 25 March 2002 in the case of Landeshauptstadt Kiel against Dr. med. Norbert Jaeger

text:
29.6.2002              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 156/7
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         4.    Is it in breach of Directive 93/104/EC for a rule of
                                                                              national law to permit a collective agreement or a works
                                                                              agreement based on a collective agreement to allow rest
                                                                              periods, where time is spent on call and stand-by, to be
The period for implementation of the directive expired on                     adapted to the special circumstances of such duties,
14 March 2000.                                                                including in particular reductions in rest periods as a
                                                                              result of work actually being carried out, with these
                                                                              periods of duty being compensated for at other times?
(1) OJ 1998 L 77, p. 36.
                                                                        (1) OJ L 307, p. 18.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesarbeits-
gericht Schleswig-Holstein by order of that Court of
25 March 2002 in the case of Landeshauptstadt Kiel
                against Dr. med. Norbert Jaeger
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanz-
                                                                        hof by order of that Court of 21 March 2002 in the
                                                                        case of Terra Baubedarf-Handel GmbH against Finanzamt
                         (Case C-151/02)                                                     Osterholz-Scharmbeck
                         (2002/C 156/12)                                                        (Case C-152/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 156/13)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Landesarbeitsgericht
Schleswig-Holstein (Schleswig-Holstein Higher Labour Court)
of 25 March 2002, received at the Court Registry on 26 April
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Landeshauptstadt
                                                                        European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof
Kiel against Dr. med. Norbert Jaeger on the following questions:
                                                                        (Federal Finance Court) of 21 March 2002, received at the
                                                                        Court Registry on 26 April 2002, for a preliminary ruling in
1.    Does time spent on call by an employee in a hospital, in          the case of Terra Baubedarf-Handel GmbH against Finanzamt
      general, constitute working time within the meaning of            Osterholz-Scharmbeck on the following question:
      Article 2(1) of Directive 93/104/EC (1) even where the
      employee is permitted to sleep at times when he is not
      required to work?                                                 Can a taxable person exercise his right to deduct only in
                                                                        respect of the calendar year in which he holds an invoice
                                                                        pursuant to Article 18(1)(a) of Directive 77/388/EEC (1) or
2.    Is it in breach of Article 3 of Directive 93/104/EC for a         must the right to deduct always be exercised (even if retrospec-
      rule of national law to classify time spent on call as a rest     tively) in respect of the calendar year in which the right to
      period unless work is actually carried out, where the             deduct pursuant to Article 17(1) of Directive 77/388/EEC
      employee stays in a room provided in a hospital and               arose?
      works as and when required to do so?
3.    Is it in breach of Directive 93/104/EC for a rule of
      national law to permit a reduction in the daily rest period
      of 11 hours in hospitals and other establishments for the         (1) OJ L 145, p. 1.
      treatment, care and supervision of persons, where the
      amount of time actually worked during time spent on
      call or stand-by, not exceeding one half of the rest period,
      is compensated for at other times?


title: Case C-457/06 P: Order of the Court of 4 October 2007 — Republic of Finland v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Action for annulment — Inadmissibility — Measure not having binding legal effects — European Communities' own resources — Infringement procedure — Article 11 of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 — Interest for late payment — Negotiations for an agreement on a conditional payment — Refusal letter)

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/18

         Order of the Court of 4 October 2007 — Republic of Finland v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-457/06 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Action for annulment - Inadmissibility - Measure not having binding legal effects - European Communities' own resources - Infringement procedure - Article 11 of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 - Interest for late payment - Negotiations for an agreement on a conditional payment - Refusal letter)
   (2008/C 22/34)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Finland (represented by: E. Bygglin, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Wilms and P. Aalto, Agents)
   Re:
   Appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 5 September 2006 in Case T-350/05 Finland v Commission dismissing as inadmissible an application for annulment of the Commission's decision of 8 July 2005 refusing to enter into negotiations with the Republic of Finland on the possibility of paying provisionally the customs duties on defence equipment claimed by the Commission in proceedings for failure to fulfil obligations — Acts against which an action may be brought
   Operative part of the order
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.


title: Case T-33/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  25 January 2006  — Weißenfels v Parliament (Officials — Remuneration — Dependent child allowance — Double allowance for a handicapped child — Article 67(2) of the Staff Regulations — Deduction of an allowance of like nature)

text:
               25.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 74/18

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 January 2006 — Weißenfels v Parliament
   (Case T-33/04) (1)

   (Officials - Remuneration - Dependent child allowance - Double allowance for a handicapped child - Article 67(2) of the Staff Regulations - Deduction of an allowance of like nature)
   (2006/C 74/35)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties:

      Applicant: Roderich Weißenfels (Luxembourg) (represented by: H. Arend, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: L. Knudsen, U. Rösslein and E. Ecker, agents)
   Application for
   Annulment of the decision of the Parliament of 26 June 2003 deducting from the double dependent child allowance granted to the applicant under Article 67(3) of the Staff Regulations an allowance of like nature received from another source.
   Operative part of the Judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 94, 17.4.2004.


title: Case C-376/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 15 July 2011 — Pie Optiek v Bureau Gevers, European Registry for Internet Domains

text:
               8.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 298/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 15 July 2011 — Pie Optiek v Bureau Gevers, European Registry for Internet Domains
   (Case C-376/11)
   2011/C 298/21
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour d’appel de Bruxelles (Belgium)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Apellant: Pie Optiek

      Respondents: Bureau Gevers, European Registry for Internet Domains

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 12(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 874/2004 of 28 April 2004 laying down public policy rules concerning the implementation and functions of the.eu Top Level Domain and the principles governing registration (1) be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation where the prior right concerned is a trade mark right, the words ‘licensees of prior rights’ may refer to a person who has been authorised by the proprietor of the trade mark solely to register, in his own name but on behalf of the licensor, a domain name identical or similar to the trade mark, but without being authorised to put the trade mark to other uses or to use the sign as a trade mark — for example, for the purpose of marketing of goods or services under the trade mark?

               2.

               If that question is answered in the affirmative, must Article 21(1)(a) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 874/2004 of 28 April 2004 laying down public policy rules concerning the implementation and functions of the.eu Top Level Domain and the principles governing registration be interpreted as meaning that ‘rights or legitimate interest’ exist even if the ‘licensee of prior rights’ has obtained registration of the.eu domain name in his own name but on behalf of the proprietor of the trade mark where the latter is not eligible in accordance with Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 733/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 April 2002 on the implementation of the.eu Top Level Domain (2)?

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 162, p. 40.

      (2)  OJ 2002 L 113, p. 1.


title: Case C-62/12: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna — Bulgaria) — Galin Kostov v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite (Common system of value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 9(1) — Concept of ‘taxable person’ — Natural person — Taxable supply of a service — Occasional supply — Unconnected with a registered professional activity subject to VAT — Self-employed bailiff)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/26

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna — Bulgaria) — Galin Kostov v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite
   (Case C-62/12) (1)

   (Common system of value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 9(1) - Concept of ‘taxable person’ - Natural person - Taxable supply of a service - Occasional supply - Unconnected with a registered professional activity subject to VAT - Self-employed bailiff)
   2013/C 225/41
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Administrativen sad — Varna

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Galin Kostov

      Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Administrativen sad — Varna — Interpretation of Article 9(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Concept of taxable person — Liability to VAT of a natural person carrying out, on an occasional basis, supplies of taxable services not connected with his profession as a bailiff

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 9(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax is to be interpreted as meaning that a natural person who is already a taxable person for value added tax purposes in respect of his activities as a self-employed bailiff must be regarded as a ‘taxable person’ in respect of any other economic activity carried out occasionally, provided that that activity constitutes an activity within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 9(1) of Directive 2006/112.

      (1)  OJ C 118, 21.4.2012.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 October 2002 in Case C-394/01: French Republic v Commission of the European Communities (State aid — Development assistance — Cruise vessel Le Levant operating in Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon — Action for annulment of the Commission decision on State aid implemented by the French Republic)

text:
C 289/4                  EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                        23.11.2002
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Third Chamber)
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                        of 26 September 2002
                                                                                of 3 October 2002
in Case C-351/01: Commission of the European Communi-
                      ties v French Republic ( 1)
                                                                              in Case C-394/01: French Republic v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Directive 98/5/EC — Practice of the profession of lawyer on
a permanent basis in a Member State other than that in                        (State aid — Development assistance — Cruise vessel Le
              which the qualification was acquired)
                                                                              Levant operating in Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon — Action
                                                                              for annulment of the Commission decision on State aid
                                                                                implemented by the French Republic)
                            (2002/C 289/06)
                     (Language of the case: French)                                                     (2002/C 289/07)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-351/01, Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: M. Patakia) v French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues
and C. Bergeot-Nunes): Application for a declaration that, by
failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative
provisions necessary to comply with Directive 98/5/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998                    In Case C-394/01, French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues and
to facilitate practice of the profession of lawyer on a permanent
                                                                              F. Million) v Commission of the European Communities
basis in a Member State other than that in which the                          (Agent: G. Rozet): Application for annulment of Commission
qualification was obtained (OJ 1998 L 77, p. 36), the French
                                                                              Decision 2001/882/EC of 25 July 2001 on the State aid
Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive,
                                                                              implemented by France in the form of development assistance
the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: F. Macken, President                  for the cruise vessel Le Levant, built by Alstom Leroux Naval
of the Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur) and J.-P. Puissochet,
                                                                              for operation in Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon (OJ 2001 L 327,
Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has                  p. 37), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann,
given a judgment on 26 September 2002, in which it:
                                                                              President of the Chamber, S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), M. Wathe-
                                                                              let, C.W.A. Timmermans and A. Rosas, Judges; J. Mischo,
                                                                              Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and            on 3 October 2002, in which it:
      administrative provisions necessary to comply with Direc-
      tive 98/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
      16 February 1998 to facilitate practice of the profession of
      lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than that           1.    Dismisses the application;
      in which the qualification was obtained, the French Republic
      has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
                                                                              2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                              (1 ) OJ C 369 of 22.12.2001.
( 1) OJ C 317 of 10.11.2001.


title: Case F-147/12: Action brought on 3 December 2012 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               23.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/26

         Action brought on 3 December 2012 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-147/12)
   2013/C 55/44
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas, S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the decision relating to the transfer of the applicant’s pension rights acquired before he entered the service, under the new GIP relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials and, so far as necessary, the decision confirming that transfer

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               Declare illegal Article 9 of the General Implementing Provisions for Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations;

               —

               Annul the decision of 3 February 2012 to apply the parameters referred to in the General Implementing Provisions for Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of 3 March 2011 in respect of the transfer of the applicant’s pension rights;

               —

               So far as necessary, annul the decision of 11 October 2012 confirming that transfer;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-43/14: Action brought on 13 January 2014 — Heidrick & Struggles International v OHIM (THE LEADERSHIP COMPANY)

text:
               28.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/22

         Action brought on 13 January 2014 — Heidrick & Struggles International v OHIM (THE LEADERSHIP COMPANY)
   (Case T-43/14)
   2014/C 129/29
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Heidrick & Struggles International, Inc. (Chicago, United States) (represented by: A. Norris, Barrister)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 October 2013 given in Case R 338/2013-2;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘THE LEADERSHIP COMPANY’ for services in Classes 35 and 44 — Community trade mark application No 11 031 457

      Decision of the Examiner: Refused to register the trade mark applied for

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b), (c) and 7(2) CTMR.


title: Case C-505/09 P: Appeal brought on 4 December 2009 by the European Commission against the judgment delivered on 23 September 2009 in Case T-263/07 European Commission v Republic of Estonia

text:
               13.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/23

         Appeal brought on 4 December 2009 by the European Commission against the judgment delivered on 23 September 2009 in Case T-263/07 European Commission v Republic of Estonia
   (Case C-505/09 P)
   2010/C 63/38
   Language of the case: Estonian

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by E. Kružíková, E. White and E. Randvere, acting as Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Republic of Estonia, Republic of Lithuania, Slovak Republic, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

      Form of order sought

               —

               set aside the contested judgment;

               —

               order the Republic of Estonia to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission considers that the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (‘the Court’) should be set aside on the following grounds:

               1.

               The Court, by regarding the application as admissible in relation to Articles 1(3) and (4), 2(3) and (4), and 3(2) and (3) of the Commission’s decision of 4 May 2007 concerning the national greenhouse gas allocation plan submitted by Estonia in accordance with Directive 2003/87/EC, (1) infringed Article 21 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance. The Court wrongly found the application admissible in relation to the decision as a whole, even though the applicant adduced grounds for annulment only in relation to Articles 1(1) and (2), 2(1) and (2), and 3(1).

               2.

               The Court erred in respect of Article 9(1) and (3) of the directive by misinterpreting the principle of equal treatment and also the objective of the directive, when defining the extent of the Commission’s power of review and its competence when applying Article 9(3) of the directive. The allocation plans are not classic measures for transposing a directive, which are assessed a posteriori. To accept that each Member State makes use of its own data, which is not reviewed, gives rise to a risk of unequal treatment of Member States. The objectives of the directive can be achieved only if the demand for quotas exceeds the supply. The upper limit of the total amount of quotas to be issued must be distinguished from the total amount of quotas to be issued.

               3.

               The Court misinterpreted the extent of the principle of sound administration. The drawing up of an allocation plan was the task of the Member State, and the Commission did not have competence to fill in lacunae, but only to assess the compatibility of the allocation plan with the directive.

               4.

               The Court erred in the legal classification of the provisions of the Commission’s decision, in finding that Articles 1(1) and (2), 2(1) and (2), and 3(1) were not separable from the other provisions of the decision and annulling the decision as a whole. There is in fact no such inseparability, and it follows clearly from the structure and grounds of the Commission’s decision that each paragraph of Article 2 has an inseparable link with the corresponding paragraph of Article 1, but there is no inseparable link with the other paragraphs of Article 2. The same applies as regards the paragraphs of Article 1.

      (1)  Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32).


title: Case C-458/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof by order of that court of  16 November 2005  in Mohamed Jouini, Okay Gönen, Hasan Bajric, Gerald Huber, Manfred Ortner, Sükran Karacatepe, Franz Mühlberger, Nakil Bakii, Hannes Kranzler, Jürgen Mörth, Anton Schneeberger, Dietmar Susteric, Sascha Wörnhör, Aynur Savci, Elena Peter, Egon Schmäger, Mehmet Yaman, Dejan Preradovic, Andreas Mitter, Wolfgang Sorger, Franz Schachenhofer, Herbert Weiss, Harald Kaineder, Ognen, Stajkovski and Jovica Vidovic v PPS Princess Personal Service GmbH

text:
               11.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 60/22

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof by order of that court of 16 November 2005 in Mohamed Jouini, Okay Gönen, Hasan Bajric, Gerald Huber, Manfred Ortner, Sükran Karacatepe, Franz Mühlberger, Nakil Bakii, Hannes Kranzler, Jürgen Mörth, Anton Schneeberger, Dietmar Susteric, Sascha Wörnhör, Aynur Savci, Elena Peter, Egon Schmäger, Mehmet Yaman, Dejan Preradovic, Andreas Mitter, Wolfgang Sorger, Franz Schachenhofer, Herbert Weiss, Harald Kaineder, Ognen, Stajkovski and Jovica Vidovic v PPS Princess Personal Service GmbH
   (Case C-458/05)
   (2006/C 60/43)
   Language of the case: German
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Oberster Gerichtshof of 16 November 2005, received at the Court Registry on 29 December 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Mohamed Jouini and Others and PPS Princess Personal Service GmbH on the following question:
   Is there a transfer of a business or part of a business, within the meaning of Article 1 of Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses (1), where, in the course of collaboration between two temporary employment undertakings, without there being a defined organisational structure of the first temporary employment undertaking, a branch manager and a customer adviser and a manager transfer from the first temporary employment undertaking to the second temporary employment undertaking and carry out comparable work there and, also in collaboration between both undertakings, approximately a third of the hired-out employees and the respective clients (with requirements varying from three to 50 hired-out employees) transfer with them, in part or entirely?

      (1)  OJ L 82, p. 16.


title: Action brought on 19 June 1996 by the United Kingdom against the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-209/96)

text:
14 . 9 . 96             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       No C 269/3
Action brought on 19 June 1996 by the United Kingdom                            effect therefore it amounts to a penalty, for which there
   against the Commission of the European Communities                           are no express vires.
                         ( Case C-209/96 )
                           ( 96/C 269/06 )                              (') Commission Decision 96/31 1 /EC of 10 April 1996 on the
                                                                              clearance of the accounts presented by the Member States in
                                                                              respect of the expenditure for 1 992 of the Guarantee Section of
                                                                              the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund and
An action against the Commission of the European                              in respect of certain expenditure for 1993 ( OI No L 117, 14 . 5 .
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the                    1996 , p. 19 ).
European Communities on 19 June 1996 by the United                      ( 2 ) Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 2456/93 of 1 September
                                                                              1993 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council
Kingdom, represented by John E. Collins , Assistant                           Regulation ( EEC ) No 805/68 as regards the general and special
Treasury Solicitor, acting as Agent, assisted by Gerald                       intervention measures for beef ( OJ No L 225 , 4 . 9 . 1993 ,
Barling QC and Helen Davies , of the English Bar, with an                     p. 4 ).
address for service in Luxembourg at the British Embassy,               ( ! ) Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 859/89 of 29 March 1989
14 boulevard Roosevelt .                                                      laying down detailed rules for the application of intervention
                                                                              measures in the beef and veal sector ( OJ No L 91 , 4 . 4 . 1989 ,
                                                                              p. 5 ).
The applicant requests :
— the annulment of the decision ( ) to disallow the sum of
      £ 3 356 000 in respect of the United Kingdom 's
      expenditure for 1992 of. the Guarantee Section of
      the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee                  Action brought on 21 June 1996 by the Commission of the
      Fund,                                                                  European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
                                                                                ( Case C-211 /96 )
— an order that the Commission pay the applicant's costs                                              ( 96/C 269/07 )
      of these proceedings .
                                                                        An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
                                                                        the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     21 June 1996 by the Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities, represented by Maria Kontou-Durande, of
                                                                        its Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                                                                        at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, also of the
The applicant submits that the decision to make the
disallowance is unlawful for the following reasons :                    Commission's Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should :
( a ) the approach adopted by the Commission in relation to
       the disallowance was fundamentally flawed in that, in
       contrast to its successor ( 2 ), the Regulation ( 3 ) did not    — declare that, by failing to adopt, within the period
       require the Member States to take steps to ensure                       prescribed, the laws, regulations or administrative
       that connected offers were not accepted , and the                       provisions necessary to comply with Commission
       Commission was wrong as a matter of law to have so                      Directive 93/27/EEC (') of 4 June 1993 amending
       concluded;                                                              Council Directive 70/524/EEC ( 2 ) concerning additives
                                                                               in feedingstuffs, the Hellenic Republic is in breach of its
                                                                               obligations under the Treaty and that Directive,
( b ) in any event, there is no or no sufficient reasoning to
       support the Commission 's conclusions that the practice          — order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs .
       of connected offers either allowed the manipulation by
       tenderers of the intervention procedures or led to a
       higher level of intervention by the national authorities,        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
       contrary to Article 190 of the Treaty, and such
       conclusions are erroneous in fact . There is moreover no         Under paragraph 3 of Article 189 of the Treaty establishing
       justification for concluding that the practices in               the European Community, a directive is to be binding, as to
       question were liable to lead to that result;                     the result to be achieved , upon each Member State to which
                                                                        it is addressed . Under the first paragraph of Article 5 of the
                                                                        Treaty, the Member States are to take all appropriate
( c ) the imposition of a flat rate disallowance of 2% in               measures, whether general or particular, to ensure
       respect of the accounts of all the Member States is              fulfilment of the obligations arising out the Treaty or
       clearly not related in amount to any loss which is said to       resulting from action taken by the institutions of the
       have been occasioned by the practices identified . In            Community .


title: Case T-135/11: Action brought on 4 March 2011 — Clorox v OHIM — Industrias Alen (CLORALEX)

text:
               21.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 152/23

         Action brought on 4 March 2011 — Clorox v OHIM — Industrias Alen (CLORALEX)
   (Case T-135/11)
   2011/C 152/43
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: The Clorox Company (Oakland, USA) (represented by: S. Malynicz, barrister, and A. Chaudri, solicitor)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Industrias Alen SA de CV (Santa Catarina, Mexico)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 16 December 2010 in case R 521/2009-4;

               —

               Order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘CLORALEX’, for goods in classes 3 and 5 — Community trade mark application No 4037371

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Greek trade mark registration No 147925 of the word mark ‘CLOROX’, for goods in classes 3 and 5; Benelux trade mark registration No 340039 of the word mark ‘CLOROX’, for goods in classes 1, 3 and 5; Czech trade mark registration No 165741 of the word mark ‘CLOROX’, for goods in classes 3 and 5; Danish trade mark registration No VR 04.153 1985 of the word mark ‘CLOROX’, for goods in class 3; French trade mark registration No 1402988 of the word mark ‘CLOROX’, for goods in classes 1, 3, 5, 29, 30, 31 and 32; Lithuanian trade mark registration No 8254 of the word mark ‘CLOROX’, for goods in classes 3 and 5; Portuguese trade mark registration No 296498 of the word mark ‘CLOROX’, for goods in class 3; Portuguese trade mark registration No 193727 of the word mark ‘CLOROX’, for goods in class 5; Spanish trade mark registration No 1047984 of the word mark ‘CLOROX’, for goods in class 3; Spanish trade mark registration No 835878 of the word mark ‘CLOROX’, for goods in class 5; Austrian trade mark registration No 52470 of the word mark ‘CLOROX’, for goods in class 1; Estonian trade mark registration No 8348 of the word mark ‘CLOROX’, for goods in classes 3 and 5; German trade mark registration No 644398 of the word mark ‘CLOROX’, for goods in classes 3 and 5; Hungarian trade mark registration No 124182 of the word mark ‘CLOROX’, for goods in classes 3 and 5; Latvian trade mark registration No M 10054 of the word mark ‘CLOROX’, for goods in classes 3 and 5; Slovenian trade mark registration No 9181304 of the word mark ‘CLOROX’, for goods in classes 3 and 5; Italian trade mark registration No 825852 of the word mark ‘CLOROX’, for goods in classes 3 and 5; Danish trade mark registration No VR 01.019 1978 of the word mark ‘CLOROX’, for goods in class 5; Finish trade mark registration No 93244 of the word mark ‘CLOROX’, for goods in classes 3 and 5; Polish trade mark registration No 60273 of the word mark ‘CLOROX’, for goods in classes 3 and 5

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the Opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the decision of the Opposition Division and rejected the opposition in its entirety

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly analysed the distinctive character of the marks at the stage of comparing them visually, aurally and conceptually, and also failed to take account of the clear similarities between the beginnings and endings of the marks.


title: Case C-163/09: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber), United Kingdom) — Repertoire Culinaire Ltd v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Directive 92/83/EEC — Harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages — Article 20, first indent, and Article 27(1)(e) and (f) — Cooking wine, cooking port and cooking cognac)

text:
               19.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/7

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber), United Kingdom) — Repertoire Culinaire Ltd v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
   (Case C-163/09) (1)

   (Directive 92/83/EEC - Harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages - Article 20, first indent, and Article 27(1)(e) and (f) - Cooking wine, cooking port and cooking cognac)
   2011/C 55/10
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (United Kingdom)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Repertoire Culinaire Ltd

      Defendant: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — VAT and Duties Tribunal, London — Interpretation of Articles 20 and 27(1)(e) and (f) of Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages (OJ 1992 L 316, p. 21) — Exemption from excise duty — Cooking wine, cooking port and cooking cognac containing salt and pepper

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 20, first indent, of Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages must be interpreted as meaning that the definition of ‘ethyl alcohol’ in that provision applies to cooking wine and cooking port.

               2.

               In circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, an exemption from the harmonised excise duty for cooking wine, cooking port and cooking cognac falls under Article 27(1)(f) of Directive 92/83.

               3.

               If products such as the cooking wine, cooking port and cooking cognac at issue in the main proceedings, which have been treated as not being subject to excise duty or as being exempted from that duty under Directive 92/83 and released for consumption in the Member State of manufacture, are intended to be put on the market in another Member State, the latter must treat those products in the same way in its territory, unless there is concrete, objective and verifiable evidence that the first Member State has failed to apply the provisions of that directive correctly or that, in accordance with Article 27(1) thereof, it is justifiable to adopt measures to combat any evasion, avoidance or abuse which may arise in the field of exemptions and to ensure the correct and straightforward application of such exemptions.

               4.

               Article 27(1)(f) of Directive 92/83 must be interpreted as meaning that the exemption contained in that provision may be made conditional on compliance with conditions such as those laid down by the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings, that is to say, the restriction of the persons authorised to make a claim for recovery, a four-month period for bringing such a claim and the establishment of a minimum amount of repayment, only if it is apparent from concrete, objective and verifiable evidence that those conditions are necessary to ensure the correct and straightforward application of the exemption in question and to prevent any evasion, avoidance or abuse. It is for the national court to ascertain whether that is true of the conditions laid down by that legislation.

      (1)  OJ C 180, 1.8.2009.


title: Case T-53/06: Judgment of the General Court of 6 March 2012 — UPM-Kymmene v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Plastic industrial bags sector — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Duration of the infringement — Single and continuous infringement — Fines — Gravity of the infringement — Mitigating circumstances — Undertaking playing a passive role — Proportionality)

text:
               21.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/21

         Judgment of the General Court of 6 March 2012 — UPM-Kymmene v Commission
   (Case T-53/06) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Plastic industrial bags sector - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Duration of the infringement - Single and continuous infringement - Fines - Gravity of the infringement - Mitigating circumstances - Undertaking playing a passive role - Proportionality)
   2012/C 118/34
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: UPM-Kymmene Oyj (Helsinki, Finland) (represented initially by: B. Amory, E. Friedel and F. Bimont, subsequently by B. Amory, E. Friedel, F. Bimont and F. Amato, and finally by B. Amory, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, Agent, and by M. Gray, Barrister)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2005) 4634 final of 30 November 2005 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial bags).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision C(2005) 4634 final of 30 November 2005 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial bags) in so far as it holds UPM-Kymmene Oyj liable for the single and continuous infringement referred to in Article 1(1) thereof, in respect of the period prior to 10 October 1995;

               2.

               Sets the amount of the fine imposed by Article 2(j) of that decision at EUR 50.7 million;

               3.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               4.

               Orders the European Commission and UPM-Kymmene each to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 86, 8.4.2006.