title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 9 January 1996 in Case T-575/93 Casper Koelman v. Commission of the European Communities (Regulation No 17 - Rejection of a complaint - Statement of reasons - National court)

text:
17. 2 . 96                 EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 46/13
       avoiding the rearing of those calves in the veal crate            Circondariale ( District Magistrate's Court), Ivrea —
       systems in Member States B ?                                      Sezione Distaccata di Strambino ( Strambino Section) of
                                                                         14 December 1995 , which was received at the Court
2 . If the effect of provisions of the Directive, if valid, would        Registry on 3 January 1996, for a preliminary ruling in the
       be to require the answer 'no ' to be given to question 1 ,        criminal proceedings against Carlo Sunino and Giancarlo
       are those provisions valid ?                                      Data on the following questions :
( J ) Council Decision 78/923/EEC of 19 June 1978 concerning the
      conclusion of the European Convention for the protection of        1 . May the national laws on employment procurement and
      animals kept for farming purposes (OJ No L 323 , 17. 11 . 1978,          temporary work, which relate to matters of public
      p. 12 ).                                                                 policy because their purpose is to protect the interests of
( 2 ) Council Directive 91 /629/EEC of 19 November 1991 laying                 workers and of the national economy, be considered as
      down minimum standards for the protection of calves ( OJ No              instances of the exercise of official authority within the
      L 340 , 11 . 12 . 1991 , p. 28 ).                                        meaning of the combined provisions of Articles 66 and
                                                                               55 of the EEC Treaty ?
                                                                         2 . May the Community rules relied upon in the parties'
                                                                               defence, in the absence of specific implementing
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura
Circondariale di Ivrea — Sezione Distaccata di Strambino                       provisions in that area, be considered directly applicable
                                                                               and do they permit any person subject to public or
by order of that court of 14 December 1995 in the criminal
                                                                               private law to pursue, without specific supervision or
     proceedings against Carlo Sunino and Giancarlo Data
                                                                               authorization, any activity as an intermediary between
                              (Case C-2/96 )                                   supply and demand on the employment market and/or
                               ( 96/C 46/24 )                                  as provider of labour on a temporary basis for third
                                                                               persons, in the event that a Member State is not able
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                         through its own administrative apparatus fully to meet
European Communities by order of the Pretura                                   the demand for services on the labour market ?
                                                        COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty
            ( Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition)                      ( OJ, English Special Edition 1959—1962, p. 87) — the
                                                                         Court of First Instance ( Fourth Chamber, Extended
                           of 9 January 1996                             Composition ), composed of D. P. M. Barrington, President,
in Case T-575/93 Casper Koelman v. Commission of the                     R. García-Valdecasas, K. Lenaerts, P. Lindh and J. Azizi,
                      European Communities (')                           Judges, B. Pastor, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a
 (Regulation No 17— Rejection ofa complaint — Statement                  judgment on 9 January 1996 , in which it:
                     of reasons — National court)
                               ( 96/C 46/25 )
                                                                         1 . dismisses the applicant's claims as inadmissible in so far
                                                                               as they are not for annulment of the Commission 's
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)                              Decision of 14 October 1993 rejecting the applicant's
                                                                               complaint or for compensation;
In Case T-575/93 : Casper Koelman, resident in Brussels,                 2 . dismisses the remainder of the claims for annulment and
represented by Michel Molitor, Lambert Dupong, Pierre                          for compensation as unfounded;
Feltgen and Lucy Dupong, of the Luxembourg Bar, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the chambers of
Michel Molitor, 14A Rue des Bains, versus Commission of                  3 . orders the applicant to pay the costs, including those of
the European Communities (Agent: Berend Jan Drijber),                          the intervener.
supported by Buma, established in Amstelveen
 (Netherlands), represented by Cornelis van Rij and Eduard
A. P. Engels, of the Amsterdam Bar, with an address for                  t 1 ) OJ No C 27, 28 . 1 . 1994 .
service in Luxembourg at the chambers of Guy Harles,
 8—10 Rue Mathias Hardt — applications concerning the
 Commission Decision of 14 October 1993 rejecting the
 applicant's complaint submitted under Article 3 (2 ) of
 Council Regulation No 17 of 6 February 1962 : First


title: Case C-280/09: Action brought on 22 July 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

text:
               24.10.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/7

         Action brought on 22 July 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-280/09)
   2009/C 256/13
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by P. Oliver and G. Braga da Cruz, Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               a declaration that, by failing to adopt the national measures required for the application of Articles 10 and 12 of Regulation (EC) No 273/2004 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 on drug precursors, by failing to communicate them in accordance with Article 16 of that act and by failing to adopt the national measures required for the application of Articles 26(3) and 31 of Council Regulation (EC) No 111/2005 (2) of 22 December 2004 laying down rules for the monitoring of trade between the Community and third countries in drug precursors, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Regulations (EC) No 273/2004 and (EC) No 111/2005;

               —

               an order that the Portuguese Republic should pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Regulation No 273/2004 entered into force on 18 August 2005 and Regulation No 111/2005 entered into force on 15 February 2005, being applicable from 18 August 2005.
   Not having received any communication at all of any measures taken by the Portuguese Republic to give effect to the abovementioned provisions of those two regulations, and not being in possession of any other information that might allow it to conclude that the necessary measures have been adopted, the Commission supposes that the Portuguese Republic has not yet adopted those measures and so has not fulfilled its obligations under those regulations.

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 47, p. 1

      (2)  OJ 2005 L 22, p. 1


title: Case T-216/06: Action brought on 16 August 2006 — Lucite International and Lucite International UK v Commission

text:
               30.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 237/12

         Action brought on 16 August 2006 — Lucite International and Lucite International UK v Commission
   (Case T-216/06)
   (2006/C 237/21)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicants: Lucite International Ltd (Hampshire, United Kingdom) and Lucite International UK Ltd (Lancashire, United Kingdom) (represented by: R. Thompson, QC, and S. Rose, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment of Article 2(d) of Decision COMP/F/38.645;

               —

               the replacement of the fine imposed under Article 2(d) of Decision [COMP/F/38.645] by a fine of EUR 18,268,750 or such other lower amount as the Court may consider appropriate; and

               —

               order the defendant to bear the costs of this application.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants seek the partial annulment of the Commission's Decision C(2006) 2098 final of 31 May 2006 in Case COMP/F/38.645 — Methacrylates, by which the Commission found that the applicants had infringed Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area by participating in a methacrylates cartel which consisted of discussing prices, agreeing, implementing and monitoring price agreements either in form of price increases, or at least stabilisation of existing price levels, discussing the passing on of additional service costs to customers, exchange of commercially important and confidential market and/or company relevant information and participating in regular meetings and other contacts to facilitate the infringement.
   In support of their application, the applicants submit that the Commission applied its guidelines on the method of setting fines incorrectly when calculating the fine imposed on the applicants.
   First of all, the Commission failed to take account of the nature of the applicant's involvement and the extent of their role in undermining the cartel when setting the starting amount of the fine.
   Secondly, the Commission did not give proper consideration to the attenuating circumstances applicable to the applicants.


title: Case C-140/15 P: Appeal brought on 24 March 2015 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 20 January 2015 in Case T-111/12 Spain v Commission

text:
               11.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/19

         Appeal brought on 24 March 2015 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 20 January 2015 in Case T-111/12 Spain v Commission
   (Case C-140/15 P)
   (2015/C 155/21)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: D. Recchia and S. Pardo Quintillán, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: Kingdom of Spain

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of 20 January 2015 in Case T-111/12 Spain v Commission;

               —

               refer the case back to the General Court for judgment;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appeal brought by the Commission concerns the judgment of the General Court of 20 January 2015 in Case T-111/12. In that judgment, the General Court annulled Commission Decision C(2011)9990 of 22 December 2011 reducing the assistance granted under the Cohesion Fund to certain projects.
   The Commission relies, in support of its appeal, on two grounds of appeal. By its primary ground of appeal, the Commission claims that the General Court erred in law in finding that the Commission had to adopt the decision on financial corrections within a time-limit, which is determined by the basic act in force on the date of the hearing between the Commission and the Member State. In the alternative, the Commission claims that the General Court erred in law in finding that the time-limit imposed on the Commission for adopting the decision on financial corrections is a mandatory time-limit, non-observance of which constitutes an infringement of an essential procedural requirement that invalidates the decision adopted outside that time-limit.


title: Case C-509/06: Order of the President of the Court of 8 May 2007 — Akzo Nobel NV v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               4.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/30

         Order of the President of the Court of 8 May 2007 — Akzo Nobel NV v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-509/06) (1)

   (2007/C 183/58)

      Language of the case: Dutch

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

      (1)  OJ C 56, 10.3.2007.


title: Case C-209/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands) lodged on 6 May 2015 — Korpschef van politie v W.F. de Munk

text:
               3.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 254/6

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands) lodged on 6 May 2015 — Korpschef van politie v W.F. de Munk
   (Case C-209/15)
   (2015/C 254/08)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Centrale Raad van Beroep

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Korpschef van politie

      Respondent: W.F. de Munk

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that it cannot be reconciled with a national provision such as Article 19 of the Besluit algemene rechtspositie politie (Decree on the general legal status of the police) (‘the Barp’), under which a public servant who has been wrongly dismissed does not accumulate any leave hours during the period between the date of dismissal and the date of reinstatement of the employment relationship, or the date on which the employment relationship is finally validly terminated?

               2.

               If it follows from Question 1 that leave hours were indeed accumulated during the period at issue, must Article 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC then be interpreted as meaning that it cannot be reconciled with Article 23 of the Barp, which provides that at the end of the reference year only a limited number of leave hours may be carried over to the following year and the remaining unused leave hours expire?

      (1)  Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9).


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) 7 March 2002 in Case C-310/99: Italian Republic v Commission of the European Communities (State aid — Guidelines on aid to employment — Measures intended to promote youth employment and convert fixed-term contracts into open-ended ones — Reduction of social security contributions)

text:
C 109/4                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                             4.5.2002
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                    2.    A national regulation such as the 1993 Regulation adopted by
                                                                                a body such as the Bar of the Netherlands does not infringe
                                                                                Article 85(1) of the Treaty, since that body could reasonably
                          19 February 2002                                       have considered that that regulation, despite effects restrictive of
                                                                                competition, that are inherent in it, is necessary for the proper
                                                                                practice of the legal profession, as organised in the Member
in Case C-309/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                        State concerned.
the Raad van State): J.C.J. Wouters, J.W. Savelbergh, Price
Waterhouse Belastingadviseurs BV v Algemene Raad van                       3.    A body such as the Bar of the Netherlands does not constitute
           de Nederlandse Orde van Advocaten (1)                                 either an undertaking or a group of undertakings for the
                                                                                purposes of Article 86 of the Treaty (now Article 82 EC).
(Professional body — National Bar — Regulation by the Bar                  4.    It is not contrary to Articles 52 and 59 of the Treaty (now,
of the exercise of the profession — Prohibition of multi-                        after amendment, Articles 43 and 49 EC) for a national
disciplinary partnerships between members of the Bar and                         regulation such as the 1993 Regulation to prohibit any multi-
accountants — Article 85 of the EC Treaty (now Article 81                        disciplinary partnerships between members of the Bar and
EC) — Association of undertakings — Restriction of compe-                        accountants, since that regulation could reasonably be con-
tition — Justification — Article 86 of the Treaty (now                           sidered to be necessary for the proper practice of the legal
Article 82 EC) — Undertaking or group of undertakings —                          profession, as organised in the country concerned.
Articles 52 and 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
Articles 43 and 49 EC) — Applicability — Restrictions —
                             Justification)                                (1) OJ C 299 of 16.10.1999.
                           (2002/C 109/05)
                     (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                                                   (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                7 March 2002
In Case C-309/99: Reference to the Court under Article 234                 in Case C-310/99: Italian Republic v Commission of the
EC by the Raad van State for a preliminary ruling in the                                       European Communities (1)
proceedings pending before that court between J.C.J. Wouters,
J.W. Savelbergh, Price Waterhouse Belastingadviseurs BV and
Algemene Raad van de Nederlandse Orde van Advocaten,                       (State aid — Guidelines on aid to employment — Measures
intervener: Raad van de Balies van de Europese Gemeenschap,                intended to promote youth employment and convert fixed-
on the interpretation of Articles 3(g) of the EC Treaty (now,              term contracts into open-ended ones — Reduction of social
after amendment, Article 3(1)(g) EC), 5 of the EC Treaty (now                                     security contributions)
Article 10 EC), 52 and 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after
amendment, Articles 43 and 49 EC), and 85, 86 and 90 of the
EC Treaty (now Articles 81 EC, 82 EC and 86 EC), the Court,                                           (2002/C 109/06)
composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, P. Jann,
F. Macken, N. Colneric, and S. von Bahr (Presidents of                                          (Language of the case: Italian)
Chambers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola,
J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen,
V. Skouris and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
General; H. von Holstein, Registrar; Deputy Registrar, has                                     in the European Court Reports)
given a judgment on 19 February 2002, in which it has ruled:
1.    A regulation concerning partnerships between members of the          In Case C-310/99, Italian Republic (Agent: U. Leanza, assisted
      Bar and other professionals, such as the Samenwerkingsveror-         by O. Fiumara) v Commission of the European Communities
      dening 1993 (1993 regulation on joint professional activity),        (Agents: initially G. Rozet and P. Stancanelli, and, subsequently,
      adopted by a body such as the Nederlandse Orde van Advocaten         G. Rozet and V. Di Bucci): Application for annulment of
      (the Bar of the Netherlands), is to be treated as a decision         Commission Decision 2000/128/EC of 11 May 1999 concern-
      adopted by an association of undertakings within the meaning         ing aid granted by Italy to promote employment (OJ 2000
      of Article 85(1) of the Treaty (now Article 81 EC).                  L 42, p. 1) the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: N. Colneric
 ---pagebreak--- 4.5.2002                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 109/5
(Rapporteur), President of the Second Chamber, acting for the              Salzburg, on the interpretation of Articles 56 EC to 60 EC, the
President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, R. Schintgen, V. Skou-               Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: N. Colneric, President of
ris and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,              the Second Chamber, acting for the President of the Sixth
Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar,            Chamber, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur),
has given a judgment on 7 March 1999, in which it:                         R. Schintgen and V. Skouris, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate
                                                                           General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
                                                                           has given a judgment on 5 March 2002, in which it has ruled:
1.     Dismisses the application;
                                                                           Articles 56 EC to 60 EC:
2.     Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                           —     do not preclude a prior notification procedure such as that laid
                                                                                down by the scheme for the acquisition of land established by
( 1) OJ C 299 of 16.10.1999.
                                                                                the Salzburger Grundverkehrsgesetz 1997;
                                                                           —     preclude a prior authorisation procedure such as that laid down
                                                                                by that scheme.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Sixth Chamber)
                            5 March 2002
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
in Cases C-515/99, C-519/99 to C-524/99 and C-526/99 to
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
C-540/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Salzburg): Hans Reisch
e.a. v Bürgermeister der Landeshauptstadt Salzburg,                                                27 February 2002
Grundverkehrsbeauftragter des Landes Salzburg, Grund-
     verkehrslandeskommission des Landes Salzburg (1)
                                                                           in Case C-6/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                           the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Abfall Service AG (ASA) v
(Free movement of capital — Article 56 EC — Prior                              Bundesminister für Umwelt, Jugend und Familie (1)
notification and authorisation procedure for the acquisition
   of building plots — Absence of purely internal situation)
                                                                           (Environment — Waste — Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 on
                                                                           shipments of waste — Competence of the authority of
                           (2002/C 109/07)                                 dispatch to scrutinise the classification of the purpose of a
                                                                           shipment (recovery or disposal) and to object to a shipment
                                                                           on the ground of an incorrect classification — Directive
                    (Language of the case: German)                         75/442/EEC on waste — Classification of deposit of waste
                                                                                in a disused mine)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                                                   (2002/C 109/08)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
In Joined Cases C-515/99, C-519/99 to C-524/99 and
C-526/99 to C-540/99: Reference to the Court under                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Article 234 EC by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Salz-                                     in the European Court Reports)
burg (Austria) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
pending before that court between Hans Reisch (C-515/99),
Walter Riedl (C-527/99), Alexander Hacker (C-528/99),
Gerhard Eckert (C-529/99), Franz Gstöttenbauer (C-530/99),                 In Case C-6/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
Helmut Hechwarter (C-531/99), Alois Bixner (C-532/99), Geza                by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary
Aumüller (C-533/99), Berthold Garstenauer (C-534/99 and                    ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
C-536/99), Robert Eder (C-535/99), Hartmut Ramsauer                        Abfall Service AG (ASA) and Bundesminister für Umwelt,
(C-537/99 and C-538/99), Harald Kronberger (C-539/99),                     Jugend und Familie, on the interpretation of Council Regu-
Erich Morianz (C-540/99) and Bürgermeister der Landes-                     lation (EEC) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the supervision
hauptstadt Salzburg, Grundverkehrsbeauftragter des Landes                  and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the


title: Case C-346/10: Action brought on 8 July 2010 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

text:
               11.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/31

         Action brought on 8 July 2010 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-346/10)
   ()
   2010/C 246/52
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Zavvos)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by the imposition of restrictions on the issue of road licences for commercial vehicles and private road tankers, in particular by Article 4 of Law 383/1976, Articles 6 and 7 of Law 3054/2002 and the ministerial decisions concerning implementation of those laws, and by the imposition of set charges (between certain limits) for the transport services which are provided by commercial vehicles, Greece is infringing Article 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (formerly Article 43 EC);

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission contends that the fact that the grant of new licences for commercial vehicles is dependent upon the ‘country’s transport needs’, which are not defined objectively, restricts the freedom of establishment of road hauliers in Greece and, given that the restrictions in question are not justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health, Article 4(3)(a) of Law 383/1976 infringes Article 49 TFEU (formerly Article 43 EC).
   The Commission further submits that the obligation to impose defined carriage charges with upper and lower limits, first, discourages access of foreign undertakings to the road haulage market and/or to the Greek market for trade in petroleum products and, second, prevents undertakings already established in Greece from developing their activities as they are denied the possibility of effective competition with the undertakings already firmly on the market, a result which, in accordance with the Court of Justice’s case-law, infringes the freedom of establishment. This setting of rates and conditions for carriage is not consistent with Article 96(2) TFEU (as the Commission has not granted the requisite authorisation) and does not serve to protect vulnerable sectors of the economy and remote areas, whilst the setting by the Greek State of only minimum limits in respect of the charge for carriage of liquid fuels by commercial road vehicles is not consistent with the rules of free competition and must therefore be abolished immediately.
   In addition, the Commission contends that Law 3054/2002 enables the Greek Government to control the number of private tankers on the road and the provision in question therefore infringes freedom of establishment, being one of that body of Greek legislative provisions which ultimately seek not only to preserve the closed nature of the profession of petroleum goods transporter but also to preserve the power of every company operating on that market. The administrative setting of the number of tankers of companies trading in petroleum products is not necessary for the adaptation of those undertakings to market conditions and is not justified on grounds of public security (road safety) and public health.
   The Commission submits that the Hellenic Republic has not put forward sufficient explanation and details to justify the adoption of the foregoing restrictions, so that Article 4 of Law 383/1976 and Articles 6 and 7 of Law 3054/2002 together with the ministerial decisions concerning implementation of those laws and the imposition of set charges (between certain limits) for the transport services which are provided by commercial vehicles infringe Article 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (formerly Article 43 EC).


title: Action brought on 14 November 1996 by Juana de la Cruz Elena Vela Palacios against the Economic and Social Committee (Case T-183/96)

text:
No C 54/22              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      22 . 2 . 97
Action brought on 8 November 1996 by Societa Eridania                  areas in which production is less than consumption , sugar
SpA and Others against the Council of the European                     manufacturers pay a higher minimum price for beet than
                                 Union                                 that paid by manufacturers in non-deficit areas . The scope
                          ( Case T-178/96 )                            of the original system was to enable producers in countries
                                                                       where there is a surplus to supply deficit countries, most
                             ( 97/C 54/36 )                            of the essential transport costs being covered.
                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                       The applicants reject the view that Italy should continue
An action against the Council of the European Union was                to be considered a deficit area . According to the
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European             applicants , during the last marketing years taken as a
Communities on 8 November 1996 by Societa Eridiana                     whole, production exceeded consumption by five ninths
SpA, whose registered office is at Genoa ( Italy ), and                while average production per marketing year and average
Societa ISI ( Industria Saccarifera Italiana Agroindustriale           consumption per marketing year was perfectly balanced .
SpA ), whose registered office is at Padua ( Italy ), of the           However, during the last three marketing years, average
Eridania Group, Societa Sadam Zuccherifici, a division of              production has exceeded average consumption by some
SECI ( Societa Esercizi Commerciali Industriali SpA ),                 30 000 tonnes . In view of this, the fact that regional prices
whose registered office is at Bologna ( Italy ), Societa               are applied to Italy means, according to the applicants,
Sadam Castiglionese SpA, whose registered office is at                 that the system no longer has its original function, having
Bologna ( Italy ), and Societa Sadam Abruzzo SpA, whose                become a gratuitous award paid to beet producers charged
registered office is at Bologna ( Italy ), of the Sadam                totally and exclusively to Italian sugar manufacturers .
Zuccherifici Group, Societa Zuccherificio del Molise SpA,
whose registered office is at Termoli ( Italy ), and Societa           The pleas and main arguments are analogous to those
SFIR ( Societa Fondiaria Industriale Romagnola SpA ),                  relied on in Case T-l 68 /95 Eridiana and Others . More in
whose registered office is at Cesena ( Italy ), represented by         particular, the contested Regulation is unlawful on the
Bernard O'Connor, Solicitor of the High Court of Ireland,              grounds of belated adoption, inadequate statement of
Ivano Vigliotti and Paolo Crocetta , of the Genoa Bar, with            reasons, arbitrary classification of Italy as a deficit area
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                and misuse of powers .
Arsene Kronshagen, 12 boulevard de la Foire .
                                                                       The inapplicability of the abovementioned provisions of
The applicants claim that the Court should :                           Regulation ( EEC ) No 1785/81 is relied upon only in so far
                                                                       as the grounds set out above should not be sufficient for
— declare the action admissible,                                       the annulment of the contested Regulation and, in
                                                                       particular, if it should be held that Italy is a deficit area .
— declare void or annul, pursuant to Articles 173 and
    174 of the EC Treaty, Regulation ( EC ) No 1580/96 of
    30 July 1996 in so far as it concerns the applicants or,
    in the alternative, declare void or annul that
    Regulation erga omnes, in particular as regards
    Article 1 ( f),                                                    Action brought on 14 November 1996 by Juana de la
                                                                       Cruz Elena Vela Palacios against the Economic and Social
— declare inapplicable, pursuant to Article 1 84 of the EC                                          Committee
    Treaty, Regulation ( EEC ) No 1785/81 of 30 June 1981
    and subsequent amendments thereto, in so far as it                                         ( Case T-183 /96 )
    concerns the applicants, in particular as regards                                             ( 97/C 54/37 )
    Articles 3 ( 1 ), 5 ( 3 ) and 6 ( 2 ),
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
— order the Council, pursuant to Article 178 and the
    second paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty, to               An action against the Economic and Social Committee
    make good all the damage caused to the applicants,                 was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
    taking into account accrued interest and currency                  European Communities on 14 November 1996 by Juana
    fluctuations,                                                      de la Cruz Elena Vela Palacios, residing in Brussels,
                                                                       represented by Guy San Bartolome Sarrey, of the Brussels
— take any other measure which the Court deems                         Bar, with an address for service at 174 , avenue Louise ,
    necessary in order to determine the damage caused to               Brussels .
    the applicants,
— order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings .              The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    — declare the application admissible and well founded,
A number of Italian sugar manufacturing companies                      — annul Decision 27/96A of the Secretary-General , the
challenge the new system relating to the sugar sector                       final decision in disciplinary procedure 1 /1995
inasmuch as it continues to consider Italy to be a deficit                  concerning the content of the note dated 10 January
country and, consequently, maintains the regional system                    1995 sent to her assessor, and in particular annul the
of prices for the marketing year 1996/97. It is observed in                 measure of relegation in step ( three steps ), with
this regard that in those ' deficit' areas, that is in those                restitution of the portion of her salary withheld, and
 ---pagebreak--- 22 . 2 . 97            EN I               Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 54/23
— order the Economic and Social Committee to pay her:                 Action brought on 18 November 1996 by Eric Banda
                                                                         against the Commission of the European Communities
     — the difference in salary not received from the date                                     Case T-184/96 )
          on which the disciplinary measure was applied —                                       ( 97/C 54/38 )
          29 February 1996 — to the date of the Court's
          judgment in the present case,
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
     — compound interest of 8 % as default interest for               An action against the Commission of the European
          the period referred to above, and                           Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                      Instance of the European Communities on 18 November
     — the costs incurred in the present proceedings.                 1996 by Eric Banda, residing in Malawi, represented by
                                                                      Marc-Albert Lucas, of the Liege Bar, with an address for
                                                                     service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Evelyne Korn,
                                                                     21 rue de Nassau .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                     The applicant claims that the Court should :
The applicant seeks annulment of the disciplinary measure
of relegation in step, restitution of the part of her salary
withheld and removal of all the other financial effects on           — annul the Commission's Decision No R532/95 by
                                                                           which it decided to invalidate the elections held on
her salary entailed by that measure. The procedure which
                                                                           12 December 1994 amongst the local staff serving
gave rise to that disciplinary measure was initiated as a
result of the applicant's written reply to the marginal note               within Geographical Region No 11 , and to reorganize
                                                                           the same,
in her staff report to the effect that she was on leave and
absent from her post. According to the applicant herself,
that reply contained a number of firmly-worded personal              — annul the Commission rules of 8 March 1990 entitled
statements concerning her assessor and at the same time                    'Transitional arrangements for the representation of
requested a reference to the appeal assessor.                              staff serving outside the Community', published in the
                                                                           Administrative Notices of 30 March 1990,
In support of her claims, the applicant relies in the first          — annul the regional elections held, pursuant to the
place on an alleged breach of a substantial procedural                     contested decision and on the basis of the contested
requirement during the administrative procedure, in that                   rules, between 4 and 15 November 1996 amongst the
she was not given a hearing before the disciplinary                        local staff serving within Geographical Region No 11 ,
procedure was initiated, contrary to the second paragraph
of Article 87 of the Staff Regulations.
                                                                     — order the Commission to pay the costs .
Secondly, the applicant claims that the appointing                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
authority has misinterpreted Articles 12 and 21 of the
Staff Regulations and has misused its powers . She argues,
in that regard, that the sending of a personally-addressed           By the contested decision, the defendant institution
letter does not constitute a 'public expression of opinion '.        invalidated the election held for staff serving outside the
Nor can it be said that she took any action which might              Community in Geographical Region No 11 , and thus the
reflect on her position . In any event, she claims, the              election of the applicant, a local agent serving in the
opinions which she expressed in the letter in issue are              Commission 's Delegation in Malawi , and announced that
covered by the fundamental right of freedom of                       fresh elections of local representatives would be held
expression.                                                          amongst the local staff in the whole of that region, in
                                                                     order to prevent publication of the results in respect of
                                                                     other delegations from influencing the vote , which was
The applicant also considers that general principles                 held afresh only in the three delegations in issue
governing the European public service, such as the                   ( Mozambique, Namibia and Zambia ). The irregularities
principle of good management and sound administration,               occurring in those three zones allegedly consisted in the
and the interests of the service have been infringed .               use of incomplete ballot papers on which the applicant's
                                                                     name did not appear.
In the alternative, should it be found that she committed a          In support of his claims, the applicant maintains, first of
breach of the Staff Regulations and that a disciplinary              all , that there was no irregularity falsifying the result of
measure was legitimate, the applicant alleges that the               the ballot in the regional elections held in Mozambique,
measure imposed is disproportionate to the conduct                   Namibia and Zambia and in the other delegations within
concerned .                                                          Geographical Region No 11 . The applicant considers,
                                                                     moreover, that the contested decision infringes the fifth
                                                                     paragraph of Article 1 of Annex II to the Staff Regulations
                                                                     and breaches the principle of proportionality.


title: Case T-316/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 22 January 2009 — Commercy v OHIM — easyGroup IP Licensing (easyHotel) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark easyHotel — Earlier national word mark EASYHOTEL — Relative ground for refusal — Lack of similarity of the goods and services — Articles 8(1)(b) and 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Legal aid — Application lodged by the receiver for a commercial company — Article 94(2) of the Rules of Procedure)

text:
               7.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/23

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 22 January 2009 — Commercy v OHIM — easyGroup IP Licensing (easyHotel)
   (Case T-316/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark easyHotel - Earlier national word mark EASYHOTEL - Relative ground for refusal - Lack of similarity of the goods and services - Articles 8(1)(b) and 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Legal aid - Application lodged by the receiver for a commercial company - Article 94(2) of the Rules of Procedure)
   (2009/C 55/42)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Commercy AG (Weimar, Germany) (represented by: F. Jaschke, initially, and S. Grosse and I. Müller, subsequently, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: easyGroup IP Licensing Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: T. Koerl and S. Möbus, lawyers)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 June 2007 (Case R 1295/2006-2) concerning invalidity proceedings between Commercy AG and easyGroup IP Licensing Ltd.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the application for legal aid;

               2.

               Dismisses the action;

               3.

               Orders Commercy AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 235, 6.10.2007.


title: Case C-372/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Holland (Netherlands) lodged on 19 June 2017 — Vision Research Europe BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond

text:
               11.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/17

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Holland (Netherlands) lodged on 19 June 2017 — Vision Research Europe BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond
   (Case C-372/17)
   (2017/C 300/21)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank Noord-Holland

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Vision Research Europe BV

      Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond

      Question referred

   Is Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 113/2014 (1) of 4 February 2014 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature valid if the Rechtbank is correct in its provisional view that subheading 8525 80 30 should be interpreted as meaning that the camera, as described in 2 and 12 above, which has a volatile memory whereby the images captured in the camera are lost when subsequent images are captured or when the camera is switched off, can be classified thereunder?

      (1)  OJ 2014 L 38, p. 20.


title: Case C-462/08: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 January 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg — Germany) — Ümit Bekleyen v Land Berlin (EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Second paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council — Right of the child of a Turkish worker to respond to any offer of employment in the host Member State in which that child has completed a vocational training course — Start of the vocational training course after the parents have permanently left that Member State)

text:
               13.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/13

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 January 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg — Germany) — Ümit Bekleyen v Land Berlin
   (Case C-462/08) (1)

   (EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Second paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council - Right of the child of a Turkish worker to respond to any offer of employment in the host Member State in which that child has completed a vocational training course - Start of the vocational training course after the parents have permanently left that Member State)
   2010/C 63/19
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberverwaltungsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ümit Bekleyen

      Defendant: Land Berlin

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberverwaltungsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg — Interpretation of the second paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Association Council — Turkish national born in the host Member State who, having returned with her parents to her country of origin, returns on her own, more than ten years later, to the host Member State in which her parents used to be regularly employed for more than three years, in order to start a vocational training course — Right of access to the labour market and corresponding right of residence in the host Member State for that Turkish national following the completion of a vocational training course

      Operative part of the judgment

   The second paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on the Development of the Association, adopted by the Association Council set up by the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case where a Turkish worker has previously been legally employed in the host Member State for more than three years, the child of such a worker may rely in that Member State, after completing her vocational training course there, on the right of access to the employment market and the corresponding right of residence, even though, after travelling back with her parents to their State of origin, she returned on her own to that Member State in order to start that training course there.

      (1)  OJ C 19, 24.01.2009.


title: Case T-467/12: Order of the General Court of 11 April 2013 — Tridium v OHIM — q-bus Mediatektur (SEDONA FRAMEWORK) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               1.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/43

         Order of the General Court of 11 April 2013 — Tridium v OHIM — q-bus Mediatektur (SEDONA FRAMEWORK)
   (Case T-467/12) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate)
   2013/C 156/81
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Tridium, Inc. (Richmond, Virginia, United States) (represented by: M. Nentwig, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: q-bus Mediatektur GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: M.-T. Schott, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 August 2012 (Case R 1943/2011-2) concerning opposition proceedings between q-bus Mediatektur GmbH and Tridium, Inc.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no further need to adjudicate in the action.

               2.

               The applicant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of the costs incurred by the defendant.

      (1)  OJ C 9, 12.1.2013.


title: Joined Cases C-97/10 to C-99/10: Order of the President of the Court of 8 June 2011 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’Instance de Dax (France)) — AG2R Prévoyance v SARL Bourdil (C-97/10), SARL Boucalaise de Boulangerie (C-98/10), SARL Baba-Pom (C-99/10)

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/27

         Order of the President of the Court of 8 June 2011 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’Instance de Dax (France)) — AG2R Prévoyance v SARL Bourdil (C-97/10), SARL Boucalaise de Boulangerie (C-98/10), SARL Baba-Pom (C-99/10)
   (Joined Cases C-97/10 to C-99/10) (1)

   2011/C 252/53
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Court has ordered that the cases be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.


title: Case C-216/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg lodged on 8 May 2012 — Caisse nationale des prestations familiales v Fjola HLIDDAL

text:
               4.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/6

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg lodged on 8 May 2012 — Caisse nationale des prestations familiales v Fjola HLIDDAL
   (Case C-216/12)
   2012/C 235/10
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de cassation du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Caisse nationale des prestations familiales

      Respondent: Fjola HLIDDAL

      Question referred

   Does a benefit such as the parental leave allowance provided for by Articles 306 to 308 of the [Luxembourg] Code de la Sécurité Sociale constitute a family benefit within the meaning of Article 1(u)(i) and Article 4(1)(h) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to the members of their families moving within the Community, (1) as amended and updated and applicable in accordance with Annex II, Section A, (1) of 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 and the Final Act signed in Luxembourg on 21 June 1999? (2)

      (1)  OJ 1971, L 149, p. 2.

      (2)  OJ 2002, L 114, p. 6.


title: Case C-487/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 4 November 2014  — SC Total Waste Recycling SRL v Országos Környezetvédelmi és Természetvédelmi Főfelügyelőség

text:
               26.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/9

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 4 November 2014 — SC Total Waste Recycling SRL v Országos Környezetvédelmi és Természetvédelmi Főfelügyelőség
   (Case C-487/14)
   (2015/C 026/11)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: SC Total Waste Recycling SRL

      Defendant: Országos Környezetvédelmi és Természetvédelmi Főfelügyelőség

      Questions referred

               1)

               Should the shipment of waste ‘in a way which is not specified materially in the notification or movement documents’, within the meaning of Article 2(35)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 (1), be understood to refer to the modes of transport stipulated in Annexes IA and IB to Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 (road, train/rail, sea, air, inland waterway)?

               2)

               In the event of any essential change being made to the details and/or conditions of the consented shipment, within the meaning of Article 17(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006, does failure to notify the authority justify a finding that waste has been shipped ‘in a way which is not specified materially in the notification or movement documents’, within the meaning of Article 2(35)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006, and hence shipped illegally?

               3)

               Should it be regarded as an essential change to the details and/or conditions of the consented consignment, within the meaning of Article 17(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006, if the waste consignment enters the notified country of transit at another, different border crossing point than that stated in the consent or the notification document?

               4)

               If a waste shipment is to be regarded as illegal because it enters the country of transit at a place which differs from that stated in the consent or the notification document, is it possible to regard the fine which has been imposed for that reason as proportionate if the amount is the same as the amount of the fine prescribed for a breach of the requirement to obtain consent and to give prior notification in writing?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste (OJ 2006 L 190, p. 1).


title: Case T-36/16: Action brought on 26 January 2016 — Enercon v EUIPO — Gamesa Eólica (Shades of green)

text:
               29.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 111/32

         Action brought on 26 January 2016 — Enercon v EUIPO — Gamesa Eólica (Shades of green)
   (Case T-36/16)
   (2016/C 111/37)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Enercon GmbH (Aurich, Germany) (represented by: S. Overhage, Lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Gamesa Eólica, SL (Sarriguren, Spain)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU colour mark consisting of different shades of green. EU trade mark No 2 346 542.

      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 October 2015 in Case R 597/2015-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 22 February 2000 in Case T-22/99: Gustave Rose v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Refusal of promotion — Guide to promotion — Protection of legitimate expectations — Misuse of powers — Examination of comparative merits)

text:
13.5.2000               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 135/11
                                                         COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               The applicants claim that the Court should:
                       of 22 February 2000                                (1) Declare the action to be admissible;
in Case T-22/99: Gustave Rose v Commission of the                         (2) Annul the Commission’s decision [C(1999) 2539 final] (1)
                   European Communities (1)                                   of 20 July 1999 or annul Articles 2 and 3 of the decision
                                                                              in so far as they provide, with reference to (one of) the
(Officials — Refusal of promotion — Guide to promotion                        applicants, that any amounts received by the applicant(s)
— Protection of legitimate expectations — Misuse of powers                    pursuant to the temporary arrangements (subsidies for
             — Examination of comparative merits)                             service stations along the border with Germany) are to be
                                                                              treated as constituting unlawful State aid within the
                          (2000/C 135/20)                                     meaning of Article 87(1) EC and/or must be repaid by the
                                                                              applicant(s), and/or in so far as it follows from that decision
                                                                              that any amounts which may or must be paid to the
                    (Language of the case: French)                            applicant(s) pursuant to the temporary arrangements are
                                                                              correctly classified as constituting unlawful aid for the
In Case T-22/99: Gustave Rose, an official of the Commission                  purposes of Article 87(1) EC;
of the European Communities, residing at Goutroux (Belgium),
represented by L. Vogel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address             (3) Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of C. Kremer,
6 Rue Heinrich Heine, v Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: C. Berardis-Kayser and F. Duvieusart-                Pleas in law and main arguments
Clotuche) — application for annulment of the Commission’s
decision not to promote the applicant to grade C 1 in the
course of the 1998 promotions procedure — the Court                       The pleas in law and the main arguments are similar to those
of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of: R. Garcı́a-               in Case T-318/99.
Valdecasas, President, and P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke, Judges;
J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given         (1) OJ L 280 of 30.10.1999, p. 87.
a judgment on 22 February 2000, in which it:
1. Annuls the Commission’s decision not to promote the applicant
     to grade C 1 in the course of the 1998 promotions procedure;
2. Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 100 of 10.4.1999.
                                                                          Action brought on 19 January 2000 by CAV Ulestraten-
                                                                          Schimmert-Hulsberg and Others against the Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-14/00)
Action brought on 19 January 2000 by S.W.M. Baltussen
and Others against the Commission of the European                                                 (2000/C 135/22)
                            Communities
                           (Case T-13/00)                                                    (Language of the case: Dutch)
                          (2000/C 135/21)                                 An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 19 January 2000 by CAV Ulestra-
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                          ten-Schimmert-Hulsberg and Others, established in Ulestraten
                                                                          (Netherlands), represented by G. van der Wal, of the Brussels
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                Chambers of A. May, 31 Grand-Rue.
European Communities on 19 January 2000 by S.W.M. Bal-
tussen and Others, established in Amsterdam (Netherlands),
represented by G. van der Wal, of the Brussels Bar, with an               The applicants claim that the Court should:
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of A. May,
31 Grand-Rue.                                                             (1) Declare the action to be admissible;


title: Case T-525/13: Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — H&M Hennes & Mauritz v OHIM — Yves Saint Laurent (Handbags) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing handbags — Earlier design — Ground for invalidity — Individual character — Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               19.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/23

         Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — H&M Hennes & Mauritz v OHIM — Yves Saint Laurent (Handbags)
   (Case T-525/13) (1)

   ((Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing handbags - Earlier design - Ground for invalidity - Individual character - Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Obligation to state reasons))
   (2015/C 346/26)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: H&M Hennes & Mauritz BV & Co. KG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: H. Hartwig and A. von Mühlendahl, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervener before the General Court: Yves Saint Laurent SAS (Paris, France) (represented by: N. Decker, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 July 2013 (Case R 207/2012-3) relating to invalidity proceedings between H&M Hennes & Mauritz BV & Co. KG and Yves Saint Laurent SAS.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders H&M Hennes & Mauritz BV & Co. KG to pay the costs, including those incurred by Yves Saint Laurent SAS in the course of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

      (1)  OJ C 359, 7.12.2013.


title: Case T-15/07: Action brought on 15 January 2007 — Federal Republic of Germany v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               24.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/20

         Action brought on 15 January 2007 — Federal Republic of Germany v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-15/07)
   (2007/C 69/47)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma, C. Schulze-Bahr, assisted by C. von Donat, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul Commission Decision C(2006) 5164 final of 3 November 2006 on the reduction of ERDF financial assistance granted by Decision C(95) 1739 of 27 July 1995 in the Operational Programme for Nordrhein-Westfalen in the framework of the Community initiative RECHAR II (ERDF No 94.02.10.041 /ARINCO No 94.DE.16.056);

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The contested decision reduces the assistance of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) in the Operational Program for Nordrhein-Westfalen in the framework of the Community Initiative RECHAR II.
   In support of its action, the applicant submits that the contested decision infringes the Commission's authorising decision K(95) 1739 of 27 July 1995.
   Moreover, it submits that there is an infringement of Article 24(2) of Regulation No 4253/88 (1), as the conditions for reduction are not satisfied. It also submits that the departures from the indicative financing plan do not constitute a significant change of the program.
   Even if there were a significant change of the program, the applicant submits that the Commission previously agreed to a flexible application of the indicative financing plans by virtue of its Guidelines for the financial closure of operational measures (1994-1999) from the Structural Funds (SEK (1999) 1316).
   On the assumption that the conditions for a reduction are satisfied, the applicant complains that the defendant failed to use its discretion in relation to the specific program. The Commission should have considered whether a reduction of the ERDF assistance was proportionate.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988 laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the different Structural Funds between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments (OJ L 374, 31.12.1988, p. 1).


title: Case C-461/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen (Sweden) lodged on 20 September 2010 — Bonnier Audio AB, Earbooks AB, Norstedts Förlagsgrupp AB, Piratförlaget Aktiebolag, Storyside AB v Perfect Communication Sweden AB

text:
               20.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 317/24

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen (Sweden) lodged on 20 September 2010 — Bonnier Audio AB, Earbooks AB, Norstedts Förlagsgrupp AB, Piratförlaget Aktiebolag, Storyside AB v Perfect Communication Sweden AB
   (Case C-461/10)
   ()
   2010/C 317/42
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Referring court

   Högsta domstolen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Bonnier Audio AB, Earbooks AB, Norstedts Förlagsgrupp AB, Piratförlaget Aktiebolag, Storyside AB

      Defendant: Perfect Communication Sweden AB

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Directive 2006/24/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC (the data storage directive), and in particular Articles 3, 4, 5 and 11 thereof, preclude the application of a national provision which is based on Article 8 of Directive 2004/48/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights and which permits an internet service provider in civil proceedings, in order to identify a particular subscriber, to be ordered to give a copyright holder or its representative information on the subscriber to whom the internet service provider provided a specific IP address, which address, it is claimed, was used in the infringement? The question is based on the assumption that the applicant has adduced evidence of the infringement of a particular copyright and that the measure is proportionate.

               2.

               Is the answer to Question 1 affected by the fact that the Member State has not implemented the data storage directive despite the fact that the period prescribed for implementation has expired?

      (1)  OJ L 105, p. 54.

      (2)  OJ L 157, p. 45.


title: Case T-172/10: Action brought on 8 April 2010 — Colas v OHIM — García-Teresa Gárate (BASE-SEAL)

text:
               19.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/49

      Action brought on 8 April 2010 — Colas v OHIM — García-Teresa Gárate (BASE-SEAL)
      (Case T-172/10)
      (2010/C 161/78)
      Language in which the application was lodged: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Colas (Boulogne-Billancourt, France) (represented by: E. Logeais, lawyer)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Rosario García-Teresa Gárate

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  primarily, annul the decision of the Board of Appeal:

                              —

                              in so far as it found that there was no similarity between the signs, relying on a distorted representation of the trade mark application at issue and failing, inter alia, to precisely specify the relevant public and to give reasons for the distinctive and dominant character of the terms BASE-SEAL;

                              —

                              in so far as it denied all similarity of the signs and consequently rejected the opposition to registration of the trade mark BASE-SEAL in breach of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR; and

                  —

                  in the alternative, partly annul the decision of the Board of Appeal in respect of the sole goods other than ‘chemicals used in science, photography, agriculture, horticulture and forestry … manures, chemical substances for preserving foodstuffs…’;

                  —

                  in any event, order the Office to pay all the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

         Applicant for a Community trade mark: Rosario García-Teresa Gárate

         Community trade mark concerned: a figurative mark ‘BASE-SEAL’ for goods in Classes 1, 17 and 19 (Application No 3 951 464)

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

         Mark or sign cited in opposition: several national figurative marks (Spanish, Hungarian, French, Polish, Swedish, German and Czech) and an international figurative mark in the form of a diamond, partly in yellow and containing the word ‘Colas’ for goods in Classes 1, 19 and 37

         Decision of the Opposition Division: rejection of the opposition

         Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissal of the appeal

         Pleas in law: infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark on account of the fact that there is a likelihood of confusion between the conflicting marks


title: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 October 2000 in Case C-165/99: Republic of Austria v Commission of the European Communities (Proceedings brought out of time — Inadmissibility)

text:
14.7.2001                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 200/25
des assurances sociales (Luxembourg) (Social Insurance                      5.    A person receiving an invalidity pension who resides in a
Appeals Board) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                        Member State other than the State providing his pension is not
pending before that court between Ghislain Leclere and Alina                      a worker within the meaning of Article 7 of Council Regulation
Deaconescu and Caisse nationale des prestations familiales —                      (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 on freedom of
on, first, the interpretation of Articles 48 and 51 of the EC                     movement for workers within the Community and does not
Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 39 EC and 42 EC),                          enjoy rights attaching to that status unless they derive from his
Articles 1(u), 10a, 73 and 77 of Council Regulation (EEC)                         previous professional activity.
No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social
security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed
persons and to members of their families moving within the                  (1) OJ C 100 of 10.4.1999.
Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation
(EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 (OJ 1997 L 28, p. 1) and
of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968
on freedom of movement for workers within the Community
(OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475) and, second, the
validity of Articles 1(u)(i) and 10a of and Annexes II and IIa to,
Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regu-
lation No 118/97 — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez
Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann and A. La Pergola (Presidents                                    ORDER OF THE COURT
of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur),
P. Jann, R. Schintgen, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha                                            (Fifth Chamber)
Rodrigues and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; F.G. Jacobs,
Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Head of Division,
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 31 May 2001, in                                          of 26 October 2000
which it has ruled:
                                                                            in Case C-165/99: Republic of Austria v Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities (1)
                                                                                (Proceedings brought out of time — Inadmissibility)
1.    Examination of the first question referred to the Court has
      disclosed no factor of such a kind as to call into question the
      validity of Article 1(u)(i) of and Annex II to Council Regulation                                (2001/C 200/44)
      (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of
      social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed
      persons and to members of their families moving within the                               (Language of the case: German)
      Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation
      (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, in so far as they permit
      the imposition of a residence condition for the grant of
      Luxembourg antenatal and childbirth allowances.                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                                                                            In Case C-165/99: Republic of Austria (Agent: H. Dossi,
2.    Annex IIa to Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and                    assisted by M. Schütte) v Commission of the European
      updated by Regulation No 118/97, is invalid in so far as              Communities (Agents: V. Kreuschitz and D. Triantafyllou) —
      the Luxembourg maternity allowance appears in point I.                application for annulment of Commission Decision
      Luxembourg (b) thereof.                                               1999/779/EC of 3 February 1999 on an Austrian state aid
                                                                            granted in the form of an exemption from beverage tax of
                                                                            wine and other fermented beverages sold directly on the place
                                                                            of production to the consumer (OJ 1999 L 305, p. 27) — the
3.    An allowance such as the Luxembourg child-raising allowance           Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola, President
      is not one of the family allowances which, pursuant to                of the Chamber, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), P. Jann, L. Sevón
      Article 77 of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and                   and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate
      updated by Regulation No 118/97, are to be paid to persons            General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 26 October
      receiving pensions for old age, invalidity or an accident at work     2000, the operative part of which is as follows:
      or occupational disease, irrespective of the Member State in
      whose territory they are residing.                                    1.    The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
                                                                            2.    The Republic of Austria is to pay the costs.
4.    A person receiving an invalidity pension cannot derive from
      Article 73 of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and                   (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
      updated by Regulation No 118/97, a right to family benefits
      other than the family allowances referred to in Article 77 of
      that regulation.


title: Case C-555/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Salerno (Italy) lodged on 31 October 2016 — Criminal proceedings against Vincenzo D’Andria and Giuseppina D’Andria

text:
               19.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/7

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Salerno (Italy) lodged on 31 October 2016 — Criminal proceedings against Vincenzo D’Andria and Giuseppina D’Andria
   (Case C-555/16)
   (2017/C 195/09)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Salerno

      Parties to the main proceedings

   Vincenzo D’Andria and Giuseppina D’Andria
   By order of 4 April 2017 the Court (Seventh Chamber) held that:

               1.

               Articles 49 and 56 TFEU and the principles of equal treatment and effectiveness must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation on betting and gaming, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for the organisation of a new call for tenders for the award of licences with a shorter period of validity than that of the licences awarded in the past on account of the reorganisation of the system through the alignment of licence expiry dates.

               2.

               Articles 49 and 56 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a restrictive national provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which requires a licensee of a betting and gambling service to transfer, free of charge, on the cessation of business as a result of the expiry of the final term of the licence, the rights to use tangible and intangible assets which he owns and which constitute his network for the management and collection of bets, in so far as that restriction goes beyond what is necessary to attain the objective actually pursued by that provision, which is for the referring court to verify.


title: Case F-57/11: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 23 October 2012 — Eklund v Commission (Civil service — Recruitment — Open competition — Inclusion on the reserve list — Offer of employment made to a person on a reserve list — Conditions of admission — Professional experience acquired after graduation — Respective powers of the selection board and the Appointing Authority — Acceptance of the offer of employment — Withdrawal of the offer of employment)

text:
               16.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/29

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 23 October 2012 — Eklund v Commission
   (Case F-57/11) (1)

   (Civil service - Recruitment - Open competition - Inclusion on the reserve list - Offer of employment made to a person on a reserve list - Conditions of admission - Professional experience acquired after graduation - Respective powers of the selection board and the Appointing Authority - Acceptance of the offer of employment - Withdrawal of the offer of employment)
   2013/C 46/56
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Gustav Eklund (Taino, Italy) (represented by: B. Cortese and C. Cortese, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Eggers. A. Aresu and P. Pecho, acting as Agents, then B. Eggers and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Re:

   Civil service — Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision not to give effect to the applicant’s acceptance of the post of probationary official (assistant) with the Joint Research Centre as technical assistant and to withdraw that offer, and also a claim for compensation for material and non-material damage.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Eklund to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 211, 16.7.2011, p. 33.


title: Case T-310/06 R: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 16 February 2007 — Republic of Hungary v Commission (Application for Interim measures — Application for suspension of operation — Agriculture — Common organisation of the market in cereals — Taking-over of maize by intervention agencies — Regulation (EC) No 1572/2006 — Lack of urgency)

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/42

         Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 16 February 2007 — Republic of Hungary v Commission
   (Case T-310/06 R)
   (Application for Interim measures - Application for suspension of operation - Agriculture - Common organisation of the market in cereals - Taking-over of maize by intervention agencies - Regulation (EC) No 1572/2006 - Lack of urgency)
   (2007/C 95/85)
   Language of the case: Hungarian
   Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Hungary (represented by: J. Fazekas, Agent)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and Z. B. Pataki, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for suspension of operation of certain provisions of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1572/2006 of 18 October 2006 amending Regulation (EC) No 824/2000 establishing procedures for the taking-over of cereals by intervention agencies and laying down methods of analysis for determining the quality of cereals (OJ 2006 L 290, p. 29)
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is rejected

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case T-348/16: Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2017 — Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis v ERCEA (Arbitration clause — Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development and Demonstration Activities — Minatran contract — Eligible costs — Procedure by default)

text:
               22.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/29

         Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2017 — Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis v ERCEA
   (Case T-348/16) (1)

   ((Arbitration clause - Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development and Demonstration Activities - Minatran contract - Eligible costs - Procedure by default))
   (2017/C 161/41)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis (Thessaloniki, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Research Council Executive Agency (ERCEA) (represented by: M. Pesquera Alonso and F. Sgritta, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application based on Article 272 TFEU seeking a declaration that the debt in ERCEA debit note numbered 3241606289, of 26 May 2016, that the applicant repay part of the grant which it received for the Minatran project, a sum of EUR 245 525,43, is unfounded, and that that sum corresponds to eligible costs.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Declares that the debt in European Research Council Executive Agency (ERCEA) debit note numbered 3241606289 of 26 May 2016, that Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis repay part of the grant which it received for the Minatran project, a sum of EUR 245 525,43, is unfounded, and that that sum corresponds to eligible costs;

               2)

               Declares that partial recovery by way of compensation, to the amount of EUR 132 192,12 of the debt claimed is contrary to grant agreement No 211166 concluded on 18 August 2008 for the implementation of the Minatran project and to Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities.

               3)

               Orders the ERCEA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 296, 16.8.2016.


title: Case T-320/11: Action brought on 17 June 2011 — Republic of Hungary v European Commission

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/36

         Action brought on 17 June 2011 — Republic of Hungary v European Commission
   (Case T-320/11)
   2011/C 252/81
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Hungary (represented by: M. Fehér, K Szíjjártó and K. Veres, Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment of 2011/192/EU: Commission Decision of 28 March 2011 excluding from EU financing certain expenditure incurred by Hungary under the programme for the support for pre-accession measures for agriculture and rural development (Sapard) in 2004.

               —

               An order that the Commission pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on three plea(s) in law.

               1.

               In the grounds of its application the applicant alleges, as its first plea in law, the infringement of the law of the European Union by the Commission. It states that the financial reduction applied by the Commission because of the failure to observe the period of three months laid down is unlawful given that, in its view and contrary to the contention of the Commission, the period of three months for making the Sapard payment laid down by the law of the European Union — specifically, by Article 9(6) of Commission Regulation No 2222/2000/EC (1) and by Article 8(6) of Annex A to the multiannual financial agreement signed by the European Community and the Republic of Hungary on 15 June 2001 — begins to run when the authority has all the supporting documents necessary to make the payments. Consequently, in the event that, for certain reasons, additional supporting documents are necessary, the period does not begin to run until the last of the additional documents has been sent. In addition, according to the applicant, the Commission also breached the principles of cooperation in good faith and protection of legitimate expectations in applying a financial reduction in a situation in which the Hungarian authorities had good reason to believe that their payment procedure complied with European Union law.
               As its second plea in law the applicant alleges that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment in adopting the contested decision since it did not take into account exceptional circumstances and sound reasons which would have justified not applying the financial reduction or its limitation as the case may be. It pointed to the ‘educational’ nature of the Sapard programme and the fact that the prime objective of the Hungarian authorities was to protect the economic interests of the EU, as specific examples of such circumstances. The applicant pointed out that the Commission did not suffer any loss as a result of the failure to comply with the time-limit.
               According to the third plea, which alleges a failure to state reasons, the grounds for the contested decision do not give an adequate account of the reasons why the Commission decided to apply the reduction, nor of how its extent in practice should be quantified, nor, in particular, as regards why the Commission departed from the opinion drawn up in that regard by the conciliation body, according to which there are exceptional circumstances in the present case which should be taken into account for the purposes of applying the reduction.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2222/2000 of 7 June 2000 laying down financial rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1268/1999 on Community support for pre-accession measures for agriculture and rural development in the applicant countries of central and eastern Europe in the pre-accession period (OJ 2000 L 253, p. 5).


title: Case C-547/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck (Austria) lodged on 28 December 2009 — Pensionsversicherungsanstalt v Andrea Schwab

text:
               17.4.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 100/14

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck (Austria) lodged on 28 December 2009 — Pensionsversicherungsanstalt v Andrea Schwab
   (Case C-547/09)
   2010/C 100/22
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Pensionsversicherungsanstalt

      Respondent: Andrea Schwab

      Questions referred

               1.

               Should Article 2(2), first indent, and Article 3(1)(c) of Directive 76/207/EEC, as amended by Directive 2002/73/EC, (1) and Article 2(1)(a) and (b) and Article 14(1)(c) of Directive 2006/54/EC (2) be interpreted as meaning that direct sex discrimination (termination/dismissal of an employed doctor) by a public pension insurance fund may be justified?

               2.

               Should Article 4(1) of Directive 97/80/EEC (3) and Article 19(1) of Directive 2006/54/EC — and possibly Article 2(2), second indent, of Directive 76/207/EEC, as amended by Directive 2002/73/EC, and Article 2(1)(b) of Directive 2006/54/EC or Article 2(2)(a) in conjunction with Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78/EC (4) — be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, in the event of actions for the annulment of terminations/dismissals inter alia on the grounds of sex, does not permit the consideration of social factors or interests, but only the assessment of evidence as to whether the sex discrimination was the predominant motive for the termination/dismissal or whether another reason to be substantiated by the employer predominated?

      (1)  Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions; OJ 1976 L, p. 40.

      (2)  Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast); OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23.

      (3)  Council Directive 97/80/EC of 15 December 1997 on the burden of proof in cases of discrimination based on sex; OJ 1998 L 14, p. 6.

      (4)  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.