title: Judgment of the Court of 26 September 2000 in Case C-23/99: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Free movement of goods — Procedures for detention under customs control — Goods in transit — Industrial property right — Spare parts for the repair of motor vehicles)

text:
25.11.2000              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 335/13
1.    Declares that, by prohibiting the acquisition by persons resident                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      in Belgium of securities of a loan issued abroad, under the
      second paragraph of Article 3 of the Royal Decree of 4 October
      1994, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its                                         of 26 September 2000
      obligations under Article 73b of the EC Treaty (now Article 56
      EC);                                                                  in Case C-23/99: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v French Republic (1)
2.    Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 48 of 20.2.1999.
                                                                            (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Free
                                                                            movement of goods — Procedures for detention under
                                                                            customs control — Goods in transit — Industrial property
                                                                                right — Spare parts for the repair of motor vehicles)
                                                                                (2000/C 335/25)
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Fifth Chamber)                                                         (Language of the case: French)
                      of 26 September 2000
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in Case C-22/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                                         in the European Court Reports)
the Pretura di Pinerolo): Cristoforo Bertinetto v Biraghi
                               SpA (1)
                                                                            In Case C-23/99: Commission of the European Communities
                                                                            (Agents: R.B. Wainwright and O. Couvert-Castéra) v French
(Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets —                         Republic (Agents: K. Rispal-Bellanger and R. Loosli-Surrans) —
Milk and milk products — Milk-price — Article 3 of                          application for a declaration that, by implementing, pursuant
                  Regulation (EEC) No 804/68)                               to the French Code de ]a Propriété Intellectuelle, procedures
                                                                            for the detention by the customs authorities of goods lawfully
                          (2000/C 335/24)                                   manufactured in a Member State of the European Community
                                                                            which are intended, following their transit through French
                                                                            territory, to be placed on the market in another Member State
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                         where they may be lawfully marketed, the French Republic has
                                                                            failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 30 of the EC Treaty
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      (now, after amendment, Article 28 EC) — the Court, composed
                   in the European Court Reports)                           of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida
                                                                            and L. Sevón (Presidents of Chambers), P.J.G. Kapteyn,
In Case C-22/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur),
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Pretura di                      M. Wathelet and V. Skouris, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate
Pinerolo (Magistrate’s Court, Pinerolo), Italy for a preliminary            General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between                 the Registrar, has given a judgment on 26 September 2000, in
Cristoforo Bertinetto and Biraghi SpA — on the interpretation               which it:
of Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 of the Council of
27 June 1968 on the common organisation of the market in                    1.    Declares that, by implementing, pursuant to the French Code
milk and milk products (OJ, English Special Edition 1968(1),                      de la Propriété Intellectuelle, procedures for the detention by the
p. 176) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:                                 customs authorities of goods lawfully manufactured in a
D.A.O. Edward, President of the Chamber, L. Sevón, P. Jann,                      Member State of the European Community which are intended,
H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur) and M. Wathelet, Judges;                                following their transit through French territory, to be placed on
S. Alber, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal                        the market in another Member State where they may be lawfully
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                         marketed, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
26 September 2000, in which it has ruled:                                         under Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
                                                                                Article 28 EC);
Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 of the Council of 27 June
1968 on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk              2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
products precludes national legislation, such as that at issue in the
main proceedings, which is designed to promote and encourage the
establishment of a uniform producer price for milk.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 86 of 27.3.1999.
(1) OJ C 86 of 27.3.1999.


title: Case C-434/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Mercantil No 3 de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 7 August 2015 — Asociación Profesional Élite Taxi v Uber Systems Spain, S.L.

text:
               3.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 363/21

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Mercantil No 3 de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 7 August 2015 — Asociación Profesional Élite Taxi v Uber Systems Spain, S.L.
   (Case C-434/15)
   (2015/C 363/27)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado Mercantil No 3 de Barcelona

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Asociación Profesional Élite Taxi

      Defendant: Uber Systems Spain, S.L.

      Questions referred

               1.

               Inasmuch as Article 2(2)(d) of Directive 2006/123/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market excludes transport activities from the scope of that directive, must the activity carried out for profit by the defendant, consisting of acting as an intermediary between the owner of a vehicle and a person who needs to make a journey within a city, by managing the IT resources — in the words of the defendant, ‘intelligent telephone and technological platform’ interface and software application — which enable them to connect with one another, be considered to be merely a transport service or must it be considered to be an electronic intermediary service or an information society service, as defined by Article 1(2) of Directive 98/34/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services?

               2.

               Within the identification of the legal nature of that activity, can it be considered to be … in part an information society service, and, if so, ought the electronic intermediary service to benefit from the principle of freedom to provide services as guaranteed in the Community legislation — Article 56 TFEU and Directives 2006/123/EC and … 2000/31/EC (3)?

               3.

               If the service provided by UBER SYSTEMS SPAIN, S.L. were not to be considered to be a transport service and were therefore considered to fall within the cases covered by Directive 2006/123, the question arising is whether Article 15 of the Law on Unfair competition — concerning the infringement of rules governing competitive activity — is contrary to Directive 2006/123, specifically Article 9 on freedom of establishment and authorisation schemes, when the reference to national laws or legal provisions is made without taking into account the fact that the scheme for obtaining licences, authorisations and permits may not be in any way restrictive or disproportionate, that is, it may not unreasonably impede the principle of freedom of establishment.

               4.

               If it is confirmed that Directive 2000/31/EC is applicable to the service provided by UBER SYSTEMS SPAIN, S.L., the question arising is whether restrictions in one Member State [regarding] the freedom to provide the electronic intermediary service from another Member State, in the form of making the service subject to an authorisation or a licence, or in the form of an injunction prohibiting provision of the electronic intermediary service based on the application of the national legislation on unfair competition, are valid measures that constitute derogations from paragraph 2 in accordance with Article 3(4) of Directive 2000/31/EC.

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 376, p. 36.

      (2)  OJ 1998 L 204, p. 37.

      (3)  Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’) (OJ 2000 L 178, p. 1).


title: Case C-549/03: Action brought on 23 December 2003 by the European Parliament against the Council of the European Union

text:
C 47/24               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                       21.2.2004
(c) In the alternative, breach of the AIT’s right to an effective        provisions on administrative measures in fiscal matters, such
      remedy guaranteed by Article 47 of the Charter of                  as cooperation between tax authorities enabling or facilitating
      Fundamental Rights of the European Union.                          the collection of tax, are not specifically covered by that
                                                                         provision. The directive and the regulation have therefore been
                                                                         adopted in breach of essential procedural requirements and of
                                                                         the EC Treaty.
                                                                         (1) OJ L 264, 15.10.2003, p. 23.
Action brought on 23 December 2003 by the European
  Parliament against the Council of the European Union
                        (Case C-548/03)
                         (2004/C 47/39)
                                                                         Action brought on 23 December 2003 by the European
                                                                            Parliament against the Council of the European Union
An action against the Council of the European Union was                                          (Case C-549/03)
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 23 December 2003 by the European Parliament,
represented by C. Pennera and A. Neergaard, acting as Agents,                                     (2004/C 47/40)
with an address for service in Luxembourg.
The European Parliament claims that the Court should:
                                                                         An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                         brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
—     annul Council Directive 2003/93/EC amending Directive              ties on 23 December 2003 by the European Parliament,
      77/799/EEC concerning mutual assistance by the com-                represented by C. Pennera and A. Neergaard, acting as Agents,
      petent authorities of the Member States in the field of            with an address for service in Luxembourg.
      direct and indirect taxation (1);
—     maintain the effects of the annulled directive until the           The European Parliament claims that the Court should:
      European Parliament and the Council have adopted, on
      the appropriate legal basis, new legislation;
                                                                         —     annul Council Regulation No 1798/2003 of 7 October
                                                                               2003 on administrative cooperation in the field of value
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                               added tax and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 218/92 (1);
                                                                         —     maintain the effects of the annulled regulation until the
                                                                               European Parliament and the Council have adopted, on
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                               the appropriate legal basis, new legislation;
Directive 2003/93/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1798/03 should               —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
be annulled because they should have been based on Article 95
EC and not on Article 93 EC. The difference in legal basis is not
merely formal, but directly affects the European Parliament’s
prerogatives. Indeed, according to Article 93 EC the Council
acts unanimously after merely consulting the Parliament,                 Pleas in law and main arguments
whereas, under Article 95 EC, the co-decision procedure
applies.
                                                                         The pleas in law and main arguments relied upon are identical
                                                                         to those in Case C-548/03.
According to the field of application determined by the Treaty,
for provisions which have as their object improvement of the
conditions for the establishment and functioning of the                  (1) OJ L 264, 15.10.2003, p. 1.
internal market, the general rule is Article 95 EC. Article 93
EC provides otherwise in relation to indirect taxation, in
derogation, as lex specialis, from Article 95 EC. The ancillary


title: Case T-124/14: Action brought on 19 February 2014 — Finland v Commission

text:
               12.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/39

         Action brought on 19 February 2014 — Finland v Commission
   (Case T-124/14)
   2014/C 142/51
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Finland (represented by: J. Heliskoski and S. Hartikainen)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Implementing Decision C(2013) 8743 final of 12 December 2013 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2013 L 338, p. 81) in so far as a financial correction of EUR 927 827,58 has been applied to the Republic of Finland on the ground that it has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 55 of Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the Republic of Finland.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, according to which the Commission has incorrectly interpreted and applied Article 55 of Regulation No 1974/2006. (1) The Commission has erroneously considered that the rules laid down in Finland for the grant of aid for the purchase of second-hand machinery and equipment is not compatible with the second subparagraph of Article 55(1) of Regulation No 1974/2006.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 of 15 December 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2006 L 368, p. 15).


title: Case C-445/00: Action brought on 4 December 2000 by the Republic of Austria against the Council of the European Union

text:
10.2.2001                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 45/9
2.     Have those materials been ‘recycled’ for the purposes of           Pleas in law and main arguments
       European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC (4)
       on packaging and packaging waste when they have been:
                                                                          —     Infringement of essential procedural requirements in
       a.    rendered suitable for use as a feedstock, or                       the creation of the contested regulation: The plaintiff
                                                                                complains in particular that there has been no collegiate
                                                                                decision of the Commission in relation to the amendment
       b.    used by a steelmaker so as to produce ingots, sheets               of the Commission proposal, which took the form of
             or coils of steel?                                                 adopting the content of a compromise suggestion of the
                                                                                Council. A collegiate decision of the content claimed by
                                                                                the Commission representative at the meeting of the
                                                                                Committee of Permanent Representatives, namely to
( 1) of 15 July 1975 (OJ L 194, 25.07.1975, p. 39).                             empower the relevant Commissioner to amend the
( 2) of 18 March 1991 (OJ L 78, 26.03.1991, p. 32).                             original Commission proposal accordingly, should a
( 3) of 24 May 1996 (OJ L 135, 06.06.1996, p. 32).                              formulation commanding a qualified majority be found
( 4) of 20 December 1994 (OJ L 365, 31.12.1994, p. 10).                         in the Council, is, the plaintiff maintains, not sufficient.
                                                                                That would not ensure that the College of the Com-
                                                                                mission was informed about the essential elements of the
                                                                                amended proposal, let alone ensure that it deliberated
                                                                                over them as a body. If, therefore, a lawful (amended)
                                                                                proposal of the Commission had not at any time been
                                                                                submitted as the basis for the Council decision finally
                                                                                taken, the Council had no authority to decide upon the
                                                                                matter by qualified majority.
Action brought on 4 December 2000 by the Republic of
     Austria against the Council of the European Union
                                                                          —     (In the alternative) Infringement of the Treaty by
                                                                                amending the Commission proposal after it had been
                           (Case C-445/00)                                      submitted to the Council: The Republic of Austria submits
                                                                                that the Commission does not have the authority under
                                                                                the procedure pursuant to Article 16 of Protocol No 9 to
                            (2001/C 45/19)                                      the 1994 Act of Accession to alter a proposal once it has
                                                                                been submitted to the Council, if the Council does not
An action against the Council of the European Union was                         pronounce against the proposal by qualified majority.
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 4 December 2000 by the Republic of Austria,
represented by Harald Dossi, acting as Agent, with an address             —     (In the alternative) Insufficient statement of reasons,
for service in Luxembourg.                                                      infringement of Article 253 EC.
The Republic of Austria claims that the Court should:                     —     (In the alternative) Infringement of the EC Treaty and/or
                                                                                Protocol No 9 to the 1994 Act of Accession:
1.     Annul Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2000 of 21 Sep-
       tember 2000 (1) amending Annex 4 to Protocol No 9
                                                                                —     Article 1 of the contested regulation has as its
       to the 1994 Act of Accession and Regulation (EC)
                                                                                subject-matter a formal alteration to Annex 4 to
       No 3298/94 (2) with regard to the system of ecopoints
                                                                                Protocol No 9, which is anchored in primary law;
       for heavy goods vehicles transiting through Austria;
                                                                                there is no authority in primary law for such an
                                                                                alteration.
2.     Order the Council to pay the costs.
                                                                                Even if, in the words it actually uses, Article 2(1) of
In the alternative, the Republic of Austria claims that the Court                     the contested regulation, whereby the reduction in
should:                                                                               the number of ecopoints is generally spread over
                                                                                several years, refers only to the amendment of
1.     Annul Article 1 and Article 2(1) and (4) of Council                            Article 6(2)(2) of Regulation (EC) No 3298/94, and
                                                                                thereby gives the impression that only another
       Regulation (EC) No 2012/2000 of 21 September 2000
       amending Annex 4 to Protocol No 9 to the 1994 Act of                           measure of secondary law is being altered, that
       Accession and Regulation (EC) No 3298/94 with regard                           alteration also amounts to an alteration of rules of
                                                                                primary law. That is because the ruling in Protocol
       to the system of ecopoints for heavy goods vehicles
       transiting through Austria;                                                    No 9 unequivocally and unmistakably provides for
                                                                                the full reduction of the ecopoints to be curtailed
                                                                                for the year following the exceeding of the 108 %
2.     Order the Council to pay the costs.                                            limit.
 ---pagebreak--- C 45/10                  EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      10.2.2001
     —      The allocation of the reduction of the ecopoints             Appeal brought on 1 December 2000 by P.-J. Cubero-
            over several years carried out in Article 1 of the           Vermurie against the judgment delivered on 3 October
            contested regulation (‘stretching model’) and the            2000 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance
            general introduction of the stretching model by              of the European Communities in Case T-187/98 between
            Article 2(1) of the contested regulation are, in their       P.-J. Cubero-Vermurie and the Commission of the Euro-
            content, in clear contradiction of the primary law                                    pean Communities
            rules in Protocol No 9.
                                                                                (Case C-446/00 P)
            The legal view clearly underlying the contested
            regulation, namely that ‘absolute priority’ is to be
            given to the free movement of goods and the                                              (2001/C 45/20)
            internal market, as opposed to other provisions and
            policies of primary law, is not shared by the Republic
            of Austria. Even the functioning of the internal             An appeal against the judgment delivered on 3 October 2000
            market is to be ensured only in compliance with the          by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
            requirements of environmental protection. It would           European Communities in Case T-187/98 between
            also have been possible to avoid detriment to the            P.-J. Cubero-Vermurie and the Commission of the European
            internal market with the use of measures less                Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
            restrictive of the implementation of Protocol No 9.          European Communities on 1 December 2000 by P.-J. Cubero-
                                                                         Vermurie, represented by E. Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with
                                                                         an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
     —      The reduction in ecopoint quotas carried out by the          L. Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim.
            contested regulation takes account only of a (pure)
            causation principle and fails to take due account
            also of the solidarity principle and the principle of        The appellant claims that the Court should:
            proportionality. Moreover, the use of the traffic
            volume figures in the — arbitrarily chosen — years
            1995 to 1997, in which the 108 % limit was not               (1) declare the appeal admissible and well founded;
            exceeded, for comparison with figures for 1999, so
            as to determine the ‘main perpetrator’ of the                (2) consequently:
            exceeding of that limit, lacks all foundation in
            (primary) law and leads to a disproportionate result.
                                                                               (a)   set aside the contested judgment;
—    (In the alternative) Legal infringements and insufficient
     statement of reasons when applying the calculation                        (b) itself determine the case and, upholding the appel-
     method in accordance with paragraph 3 of Annex 5 to                             lant’s initial claim:
     Protocol No 9 to the 1994 Act of Accession: The system
     underlying the contested regulation is, in view of the
                                                                                —     annul the appointing authority’s decision of
     extraordinary reduction in the number of ecopoints,
                                                                                6 April 1998 not to promote the appellant to
     wrongly based on the exclusion, or failure to take account
                                                                                grade A 5 in the context of the 1998 promotion
     of, ‘illegal’ transit journeys without payment of ecopoints.
                                                                                procedure;
     There is no legal basis for that in Protocol No 9. An
     interpretation of the calculation method laid down in
     paragraph 3 of Annex 5 that corresponds to the declared                         —     annul the decision of 9 October 1998 expressly
     aims of Protocol No 9 can only be one which allows the                                rejecting the complaint against the decision
     damage to the environment and to health arising from                                  annulment of which is sought, that complaint
     ‘illegal’ journeys also to be included in the calculation.                            having been submitted by the appellant on
                                                                                27 April 1998 and registered in the Secretariat-
                                                                                General on 6 May 1998 under number
—    (In the alternative) Infringement of the EC Treaty and/or                             R/436/98;
     Protocol No 9 to the 1994 Act of Accession on account
     of insufficient legal basis.
                                                                                —     order the Commission of the European Com-
                                                                                munities to pay to the appellant compensation
                                                                                for the combined material and non-material
                                                                                damage suffered by him, fixed on an equitable
(1) OJ No L 241, 26.9.2000, p. 18.                                                         basis in the sum of BEF 250 000;
(2) OJ No L 341, 30.12.1994, p. 20.
                                                                                —     order the Commission of the European Com-
                                                                                munities to pay all the costs in any event, both
                                                                                of the first-instance proceedings and of the
                                                                                present appeal.


title: Case C-457/10 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 December 2012 — AstraZeneca AB, AstraZeneca plc v European Commission, European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) (Appeals — Competition — Abuse of dominant position — Market in anti-ulcer medicines — Abuse of procedures relating to supplementary protection certificates for medicinal products and of marketing authorisation procedures for medicinal products — Misleading representations — Deregistration of marketing authorisations — Obstacles to the marketing of generic medicinal products and to parallel imports)

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/2

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 December 2012 — AstraZeneca AB, AstraZeneca plc v European Commission, European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA)
   (Case C-457/10 P) (1)

   (Appeals - Competition - Abuse of dominant position - Market in anti-ulcer medicines - Abuse of procedures relating to supplementary protection certificates for medicinal products and of marketing authorisation procedures for medicinal products - Misleading representations - Deregistration of marketing authorisations - Obstacles to the marketing of generic medicinal products and to parallel imports)
   2013/C 26/02
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: AstraZeneca AB, AstraZeneca plc (represented by: M. Brealey QC, M. Hoskins QC, D. Jowell, Barrister and F. Murphy, Solicitor)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, É. Gippini Fournier and J. Bourke, Agents), European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) (represented by: M. Van Kerckhove, advocaat)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber, extended composition) of 1 July 2010 in Case T-321/05 AstraZeneca v Commission, in which the General Court annulled, in part, the Commission Decision of 15 June 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 82 EC and Article 54 EEA (Case COMP/A.37.507/F3 — AstraZeneca) which imposed a fine of EUR 60 million on the appellants for abuse of the patent system and the procedure for placing pharmaceutical products on the market in order to prevent or delay the arrival on the market of competing generic medicinal products — Definition of the market — Interpretation of Article 19 of Regulation (EEC) No 1786/92 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the main appeal and cross-appeals;

               2.

               Orders AstraZeneca AB and AstraZeneca plc to pay the costs relating to the main appeal;

               3.

               Orders the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) to pay the costs of its cross-appeal and to bear its own costs relating to the main appeal;

               4.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs relating to its cross-appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 25 June 2003 in Case T-41/01: Rafael Pérez Escolar v Commission of the European Communities (State aid — Complaint — Action for failure to act — Standing — Admissibility)

text:
15.11.2003             EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 275/45
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  Luxembourg, against European Parliament (Agents: H. von
                                                                            Hertzen and L. Knudsen) — application for annulment of the
                         of 25 June 2003                                    decision of the Parliament not to pay to the applicant the sum
                                                                            corresponding to the deductions made from the salary of his
in Case T-41/01: Rafael Pérez Escolar v Commission of                       ex-wife between March and November 1998 — the Court of
                the European Communities (1)                                First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts,
                                                                            President, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has
(State aid — Complaint — Action for failure to act —                        given a judgment on 15 July 2003, in which it:
                   Standing — Admissibility)
                                                                            1.    Dismisses the application as manifestly inadmissible.
                         (2003/C 275/74)
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)                          2.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
In Case T-41/01: Rafael Pérez Escolar, residing in Madrid,
represented by F. Moreno Pardo, lawyer, with an address for
service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: I. Martínez del Peral and J. Flett) —
application under Article 232 EC for a declaration that the
Commission has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC
Treaty by failing to adopt any decision whatever regarding the              ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
complaint made by the applicant against the Kingdom of                                                    INSTANCE
Spain for infringement of Article 87 EC and by failing to
initiate the procedure provided for by Article 88(2) EC with
regard to the State aid allegedly granted by the Spanish                                             of 5 August 2003
authorities to Banco Español de Crédito SA — the Court
of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition),
composed of V. Tiili, President of the Chamber, J. Pirrung,                 in Case T-79/03 R: Industrie riunite odolesi SpA (IRO) v
P. Mengozzi, A.W.H. Meij and M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung,                            Commission of the European Communities
Registrar, made an order on 25 June 2003, the operative part
of which is as follows:
                                                                            (Procedure for interim relief — Competition — Payment of
1.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible.                                 a fine — Bank guarantee — Urgency — None)
2.    The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.
                                                                                (2003/C 275/76)
(1) OJ C 134 of 5.5.2001.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                            In Case T-79/03 R, Industrie riunite odolesi SpA (IRO),
                                                                            established in Odolo (Italy), (lawyer: A. Giardina), supported
                          of 15 July 2003                                   by the Italian Republic (Agent: I.M. Braguglia) v Commission
                                                                            of the European Communities (Agents: L. Pignataro and
 in Case T-371/02: Bernard Barbé v European Parliament                      A. Whelan) — application to suspend operation of the
                                                                            Commission Decision of 17 December 2002 relating to a
(Attachment of earnings procedure — Failure to pay to the                   proceeding under Article 65 CS (COMP/37.956 — Reinforcing
attaching creditor deductions from salary made prior to                     bars), in so far as it imposes a fine of EUR 3,58 million on the
termination of attachment of earnings — Manifest inadmis-                   applicant, — the President of the Court of First Instance made
                               sibility)                                    an order on 5 August 2003, the operative part of which is as
                                                                            follows:
                         (2003/C 275/75)
                    (Language of the case: French)                          1.    The application for interim measures is dismissed.
                                                                            2.    The costs are reserved.
In Case T-371/02: Bernard Barbé, official of the European
Parliament, residing in Luxembourg (Luxembourg), represent-
ed by A. Lorang, lawyer, with an address for service in


title: Case C-257/03: Action brought on 16 June 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland

text:
20.9.2003             EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                                C 226/5
Action brought on 16 June 2003 by the Commission of                          application of social security schemes to employed per-
         the European Communities against Ireland                            sons, to self-employed persons and to members of their
                                                                             families moving within the Community (1), as amended by
                                                                             Regulation (EEC) No 1247/92 (2) in conjunction with
                        (Case C-257/03)                                      Annex II, Section III, is care allowance under the
                                                                             Salzburger Pflegegeldgesetz (Law on Care Allowance of
                        (2003/C 226/06)                                      the Land Salzburg) awarded to a member of the family of
                                                                             a person employed in the Land Salzburg who lives with his
                                                                             family in the Federal Republic of Germany excluded from
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of                    the scope of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, as a special
Justice of the European Communities on 16 June 2003 by                       non-contributory benefit?
the Commission of the European Communities, represented
by Mr Xavier Lewis, acting as agent, with an address for service
in Luxembourg.                                                          2.   If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative:
                                                                             May the family member of a person employed in the Land
The Applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                             Salzburg who lives with his family in the Federal Republic
                                                                             of Germany claim that care allowance under the
1)   Declare that by failing to transmit to the Commission data              Salzburger Pflegegeldgesetz be paid in the form of a
     concerning CO2 emissions from new passenger cars in                     sickness benefit in cash in accordance with Article 19 and
     accordance with Article 4(4) of Decision No 1753/2000/                  the corresponding provisions of the other sections of
     EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of                     Chapter 1 of Title III of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71,
     22 June 2000 establishing a scheme to monitor the aver-                 irrespective of the fact that he is principally resident in the
     age specific emissions of CO2 from new passenger cars (1),              Federal Republic of Germany, if he satisfies the other
     Ireland has failed to fulfil fully its obligations under                conditions for receipt of the benefit?
     Article 4(4) of that Decision.
2)   Order Ireland to pay the costs.                                    3.   If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative:
                                                                             Can a benefit such as care allowance under the Salzburger
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              Pflegegeldgesetz awarded in the form of a social advantage
                                                                             within the meaning of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EEC)
Article 4(4) of the Decision clearly provides that the first trans-          No 1612/68 (3) of the Council of 15 October 1968 on
mission of information shall take place no later than 1 July                 freedom of movement for workers within the Community
2001. Ireland has failed to comply with that deadline.                       be made subject to the condition that the recipient of the
                                                                             benefit must be principally resident in the Land Salzburg?
                                                                        4.   If the answer to Question 3 is in the affirmative:
(1) OJ L 202, 10.8.2000, p. 1.
                                                                             Is the fact that citizens of the Union who are employed as
                                                                             frontier workers in the Land Salzburg but are principally
                                                                             resident in another Member State are not entitled to claim
                                                                             a social advantage within the meaning of Article 7(2) of
                                                                             Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68, such as care allowance
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster                           under the Salzburger Pflegegeldgesetz, compatible with
Gerichtshof der Republik Österreich by order of that                         Community law, in particular with the principles of non-
Court of 27 May 2003 in the case of Silvia Hosse against                     discrimination and citizenship of the Union under
                          Land Salzburg                                      Articles 12 and 17 EC respectively?
                        (Case C-286/03)
                                                                             If it is not: Does citizenship of the Union make it possible
                        (2003/C 226/07)                                      also for dependent family members of such a frontier
                                                                             worker who are likewise principally resident in another
                                                                             Member State to obtain in their own right care allowance
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       under the Salzburger Pflegegeldgesetz in the Land
European Communities by order of the Oberster Gerichtshof                    Salzburg?
(Supreme Court) der Republik Österreich of 27 May 2003,
received at the Court Registry on 3 July 2003, for a preliminary
ruling in the case of Silvia Hosse against Land Salzburg on the
following questions:
                                                                        (1) English special edition: Series I Chapter 1971(II), p. 416.
                                                                        (2) OJ L 136, 1992, p. 1.
1.   On a proper construction of Article 4(2b) of Regulation            (3) English special edition: Series I Chapter 1968(II), p. 475.
     (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the


title: Case T-321/02: Action brought on 22 October 2002 by Paul Vannieuwenhuyze-Morin against European Parliament and Council of the European Union

text:
11.1.2003               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 7/21
      —     ‘water sport tow ropes, water sport tow handles;                     subscribers concerned or’ and ‘the choice between these
            water sport tow floats; inflatable tubes for rec-                    options to be determined by national legislation’ in
            reational use in water; towable water toys designed                  Article 13(3);
            to carry a rider; wake boards; wake board bindings;
            wake board fins; water skis; trick water skis; jump            —     make an appropriate order as to costs.
            skis; water ski bindings; adjustable ski fins; water ski
            boat tow harnesses; water ski gloves; knee boards;
            water sport boards; water sport gear bags; water ski,
            wakeboard and knee board bags; water sport goods;
            dampers for use with water skis; wake boards to                Pleas in law and main arguments
            limit vibration and adjust flex, all meant to be used
            for the practice of wakeboard’ in international
            class 28.                                                      The applicant, a frequent user of direct mailing over the
                                                                           internet and founder of the internet site Internet-libre.net,
—     order the defendant to pay the costs, fees and disburse-             seeks the annulment of the abovementioned provisions of
      ments of this case and of the previous proceedings and               Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the
      appeals before OHIM Examination Division and the Third               Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of
      Board of Appeal respectively.                                        personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic
                                                                           communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic
                                                                           communications) (OJ 2002 L 201, p. 37).
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           In support of its arguments, the applicant alleges lack of legal
                                                                           basis to the contested act insofar as its adoption was not
The pleas in law and main arguments advanced are identical                 necessary for the single market.
to those put forward in Case T-318/02 (H.O. Sports Company,
Inc. / OHIM).
                                                                           Furthermore, the directive in question fails to observe the right
                                                                           to freedom of expression mentioned in Articles 5 of the
                                                                           Declaration of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, 11 of the
                                                                           Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and 10
                                                                           of the European Convention for the Protection of Human
                                                                           Rights and Fundamental Freedom and the principle of free
                                                                           trade recognised by all the Member States and that of free
Action brought on 22 October 2002 by Paul Vannieuwen-                      competition, enshrined in particular in Articles 3 and 4 and
huyze-Morin against European Parliament and Council of                     Title VI of the Treaty.
                       the European Union
                         (Case T-321/02)
                           (2003/C 7/42)
                    (Language of the case: French)                         Action brought on 14 October 2002 by Monique Breton
                                                                             against Court of Justice of the European Communities
An action against the European Parliament and the Council of                                       (Case T-323/02)
the European Union was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 22 October 2002
by Paul Vannieuwenhuyze-Morin, residing in Grigny (France),                                         (2003/C 7/43)
represented by Guy Dupaigne, lawyer.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul Article 13(1) and (2) of Directive 2002/58/EC of
      the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July                An action against the Court of Justice of the European
      2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the              Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance
      protection of privacy in the electronic communications               of the European Communities on 14 October 2002 by
      sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communi-                 Monique Breton, residing in Howald (Luxembourg), represent-
      cations), published in the Official Journal on 31 July               ed by Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Étienne Marchal,
      2002, and the words ‘either without the consent of the               avocats.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 October 2004 in Case T-56/02: Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG v Commission of the European Communities (Competition — Article 81 EC — Price-fixing agreement and ways of charging for currency exchange services — Germany — Procedure in default)

text:
               18.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 314/14

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 14 October 2004
   in Case T-56/02: Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Competition - Article 81 EC - Price-fixing agreement and ways of charging for currency exchange services - Germany - Procedure in default)
   (2004/C 314/35)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case T-56/02: Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG, established in Munich (Germany), represented by W. Knapp, T. Müller-Ibold and B. Bergmann, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communities — application for annulment of Commission Decision 2003/25/EC of 11 December 2001 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty — (Case COMP/E — 1/37.919 (ex 37.391) — Bank charges for exchanging euro-zone currencies — Germany) (OJ 2003 L 15, p. 1) — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of P. Lindh, President, R. García-Valdecasas and J.D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 October 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision 2003/25/EC of 11 December 2001 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case COMP/E — 1/37.919 (ex 37.391) — Bank charges for exchanging euro-zone currencies — Germany) in so far as it concerns the applicant;

               2.

               Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 31 March 2004 in Case T-216/02: Fieldturf Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Word mark LOOKS LIKE GRASS... FEELS LIKE GRASS... PLAYS LIKE GRASS — Absolute ground for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) and Article 73 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Refusal to register)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/38

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 31 March 2004
   in Case T-216/02: Fieldturf Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Word mark LOOKS LIKE GRASS... FEELS LIKE GRASS... PLAYS LIKE GRASS - Absolute ground for refusal - Article 7(1)(b) and Article 73 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Refusal to register)
   (2004/C 118/80)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case T-216/02: Fieldturf Inc., established in Montreal (Canada), represented by P. Baronikians, lawyer, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agent: O. Waelbroeck) - action against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 May 2002 (Case R 462/2001-1) concerning registration of the word mark LOOKS LIKE GRASS... FEELS LIKE GRASS... PLAYS LIKE GRASS as a Community trade mark - the Court of First Instance, (Fourth Chamber) composed of: H. Legal, President, V. Tiili and M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 31 March 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 233 of 28.09.2002


title: Case F-4/06: Action brought on  13 January 2006  — Villa and Others v Parliament

text:
               25.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 74/34

         Action brought on 13 January 2006 — Villa and Others v Parliament
   (Case F-4/06)
   (2006/C 74/66)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: Renata Villa (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) and Others (represented by: G. Bounéou and F. Frabetti, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament
   Form of order sought
   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul decisions Nos 102494, 102494 and 102496 of 8 February 2005 whereby the appointing authority of the European Parliament refused to reimburse to the applicants the excess premium resulting from the difference between the rights acquired during the years when they were affiliated to the Italian scheme and the number of annuities transferred to the Community scheme following a new calculation of the transfer of their pension rights;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main argument
   In 1991, the applicants, who are officials of the European Parliament, transferred to the Community scheme the pension rights which they had acquired in Italy before entering the service of the Communities. The difference between the actual number of years of affiliation to the Italian scheme and the number of annuities resulting from the calculation of the premium in the Community scheme was determined in accordance with the general implementing provisions then applied by the Parliament, which did not align the premium with the number of years of affiliation in Italy.
   Following the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations, the applicants submitted requests seeking to obtain a new calculation of the premium previously obtained, in reliance on Article 26(5) and (6) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations. The requests were rejected and the applicants lodged complaints, which were also rejected by the appointing authority.
   In their action, the applicants claim that there has been a breach of Article 26 of Annex XIII to the new Staff Regulations, and also of Article 1(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, in both the new and the old versions.
   They further maintain that the Parliament has also breached the principles of proper administration, of equal treatment, of non-discrimination, of the prohibition of unfair process, of the protection of legitimate expectations, of non-enrichment and also of the duty to have regard for the welfare of staff.


title: Judgment of the Court of 6 March 2001 in Case C-273/99 P: Bernard Connolly v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Officials — Disciplinary proceedings — Suspension — Statement of reasons — Alleged misconduct — Articles 11, 12 and 17 of the Staff Regulations — Equal treatment)

text:
C 173/12                  EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                          16.6.2001
Tribunal Administrativo (Supreme Administrative Court) (Por-                  Communities (Agent: H. van Vliet) — application for partial
tugal) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending                    annulment of Commission Decision 98/358/EC of 6 May
before that court between Fazenda Pública and Fábrica de                    1998 on the clearance of the accounts presented by the
Queijo Eru Portuguesa Lda, intervener Ministério Público — on                Member States in respect of the expenditure for 1994 of the
the interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1999/85 of                  Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and
16 July 1985 on inward processing relief arrangements                         Guarantee Fund (OJ 1998 L 163, p. 28), in so far as it disallows
(OJ 1985 L 188, p. 1) and, in particular, Article 11 thereof —                expenditure of NLG 16 378 716,63 incurred by the applicant
the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris, Presi-                   in connection with the prefinancing of export refunds — the
dent of the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and N. Colne-                  Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President
ric, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,               of the Chamber, V. Skouris, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen and
has given a judgment on 22 February 2001, in which it has                     F. Macken (Rapporteur), Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General;
ruled:                                                                        H.A. Rühl, Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 March 2001,
                                                                              in which it:
1.    Article 11 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1999/85 of
      16 July 1985 on inward processing relief arrangements is to             1.    Dismisses the application;
      be interpreted as applying not only to the conditions or
      requirements for the issue of an authorisation under the inward
      processing relief arrangements but also to the conditions               2.    Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.
      imposed by the authorisation on its holder for the use or
      functioning of those arrangements and, consequently, the
      customs authority may unilaterally alter the rate of yield fixed        (1) OJ C 299 of 26.9.1998.
      by it at the time when the authorisation was issued where, while
      the arrangements are being used, the rate of yield proves to be
      higher than the rate fixed in the authorisation.
2.    Neither Regulation No 1999/85 nor the principle of legal
      certainty precludes the customs authority from altering unilat-
      erally a rate of yield fixed by it in the authorisation even if it is
      proved that the customs authority was supervising and con-
      trolling the activities of the holder of the authorisation before it
      was issued.                                                                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(1) OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999.                                                                             of 6 March 2001
                                                                              in Case C-273/99 P: Bernard Connolly v Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities (1)
                                                                              (Appeal — Officials — Disciplinary proceedings — Suspen-
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      sion — Statement of reasons — Alleged misconduct —
                                                                              Articles 11, 12 and 17 of the Staff Regulations — Equal
                           (Sixth Chamber)                                                                 treatment)
                           of 6 March 2001
                                                                                (2001/C 173/20)
in Case C-278/98: Kingdom of the Netherlands v Com-
           mission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — 1994 — Cereals, beef
                                 and veal)
                                                                              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                            (2001/C 173/19)                                                      in the European Court Reports)
                      (Language of the case: Dutch)                           In Case C-273/99 P: Bernard Connolly, a former official of
                                                                              the Commission of the European Communities, residing in
                                                                              London, United Kingdom, represented by J. Sambon and
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published        P.-P. van Gehuchten, avocats, with an address for service in
                     in the European Court Reports)                           Luxembourg, appeal against the judgment of the Court of First
                                                                              Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber) of
In Case C-278/98: Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agents:                         19 May 1999 in Case T-203/95 Connolly v Commission
M.A. Fierstra and N. Wijmenga) v Commission of the European                   [1999] ECR-SC I-A-83 and II-443, seeking to have that
 ---pagebreak--- 16.6.2001                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 173/13
judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings being:              1.    Dismisses the appeal;
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Valses-
ia, and J. Currall, assisted by D. Waelbroeck) — the Court,
composed of G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann,               2.    Orders Mr Connolly to pay the costs.
A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur) and V. Skouris
(Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet,
P. Jann, L. Sevón, R. Schintgen and N. Colneric, Judges; D. Ruiz-         (1) OJ C 299 of 16.10.1999.
Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
given a judgment on 6 March 2001, in which it:
1.     Dismisses the appeal;
2.     Orders Mr Connolly to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 8 March 2001
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          of 6 March 2001                                  in Joined Cases C-397/98 and C-410/98 (reference for a
                                                                           preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of
                                                                           England and Wales, Chancery Division): Metallgesellschaft
in Case C-274/99 P: Bernard Connolly v Commission of                       Ltd and Others (C-397/98), Hoechst AG, Hoechst UK Ltd
                 the European Communities (1)                              (C-410/98) v Commissioners of Inland Revenue, H.M.
                                                                                Attorney General (1)
(Appeal — Officials — Disciplinary proceedings —
Articles 11, 12 and 17 of the Staff Regulations — Freedom
of expression — Duty of loyalty — Conduct reflecting on an                 (Freedom of establishment — Free movement of capital —
                          official’s position)                             Advance payment of corporation tax on profits distributed
                                                                           by a subsidiary to its parent company — Parent company
                                                                           having its seat in another Member State — Breach of
                           (2001/C 173/21)                                 Community law — Action for restitution or action for
                                                                                damages — Interest)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (2001/C 173/22)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
In Case C-274/99 P: Bernard Connolly, a former official of
the Commission of the European Communities, residing in                    In Joined Cases C-397/98 and C-410/98: reference to the
London, United Kingdom, represented by J. Sambon and                       Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now Article 234
P.-P. van Gehuchten, avocats, with an address for service in               EC) from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales,
Luxembourg, appeal against the judgment of the Court of First              Chancery Division, (United Kingdom) for a preliminary ruling
Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber) of                    in the proceedings pending before that court between Metallge-
19 May 1999 in Joined Cases T-34/96 and T-163/96 Connolly                  sellschaft Ltd and Others (C-397/98), Hoechst AG, Hoechst
v Commission [19991 ECR-SC I-A-87 and II-463, seeking to                   UK Ltd (C-410/98) and Commissioners of Inland Revenue,
have that judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings           H.M. Attorney General — on the interpretation of Articles 6
being: Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                     and 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 12
G. Valsesia and J. Currall, assisted by D. Waelbroeck) —                   EC and 43 EC), Article 58 of the EC Treaty (now Article 48
the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President,               EC) and/or Article 73b of the EC Treaty (now Article 56 EC)
C. Gulmann, A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur) and                    — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola,
V. Skouris (Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward,                        President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur),
J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann, L. Sevón, R. Schintgen and N. Colneric,        D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; N. Fennelly,
Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass,                Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 March 2001, in which it:              has given a judgment on 8 March 2001, in which it has ruled:


title: Case T-400/05: Action brought on  2 November 2005  — T v Commission

text:
               28.1.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/15

         Action brought on 2 November 2005 — T v Commission
   (Case T-400/05)
   (2006/C 22/29)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: T (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and Y. Minatchy, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Forms of order sought
   The applicant claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul, as far as necessary, the decision of 20 July 2005 by which the Commission rejected the applicant's complaints lodged on 10 February 2005 and 21 March 2005 against the Commission's decision concerning the loss of her days of leave for 2004 and against the Commission's decision to consider the applicant's absences from 15 November 2004 to be improper;

               —

               establish the liability of the European Community as a result of the contested decision;

               —

               award the applicant damages for the harm suffered, in an amount of EUR 58 395.39;

               —

               order the defendant to pay all the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant is a former Commission official, in retirement since 1 September 2005. By her action, she contests the defendant's decision to consider some of her absences in 2004 to be improper and to be set against her annual leave entitlement and her remuneration. In support of her action she alleges infringement of the duty to give reasons, infringement of the principles of equal treatment and sound administration and the duty to have regard for the interests of officials.
   The applicant also alleges infringement of Article 59 of the Staff Regulations in so far as she has medical certificates for the periods of absence at issue. In addition, she alleges infringement of Article 57 of the Staff Regulations and Annex V thereto concerning annual leave, a manifest error of assessment and misuse of powers.
   The applicant also claims that she should be compensated for both the pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss that she allegedly incurred as a result of the defendant's actions.


title: Case T-132/16: Judgment of the General Court of 5 May 2017 — PayPal v EUIPO — Hub Culture (VENMO) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark VENMO — Bad faith — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               19.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/24

         Judgment of the General Court of 5 May 2017 — PayPal v EUIPO — Hub Culture (VENMO)
   (Case T-132/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark VENMO - Bad faith - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 195/33)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: PayPal, Inc. (San José, California, United States) (represented by: A. Renck, lawyer, and I. Junkar, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Hub Culture Ltd (Hamilton, Bermuda, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Hill, Barrister)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 January 2016 (Case R 2974/2014-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between PayPal and Hub Culture.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 12 January 2016 (Case R 2974/2014-5);

               2.

               Orders EUIPO to pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by PayPal, Inc.;

               3.

               Orders Hub Culture Ltd to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 191, 30.5.2016.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Meaux (First Chamber), by judgment of 13 November 1997, in the case of Yves Tarantik and Direction des Services Fiscaux, Seine-et-Marne (Case C-421/97)

text:
7.2.98                   EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 41/15
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Netherlands                 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van
Raad van State by order of that court of 25 November                    Cassatie van BelgieÈ by judgment of that court of
1997 in the case of ARCO Chemie Nederland Ltd v.                        4 December 1997 in the case of Leathertex Divisione
Minister van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en                               Sintetici SpA against BVBA Bodetex
                            Milieubeheer                                                        (Case C-420/97)
                          (Case C-418/97)                                                         (98/C 41/30)
                            (98/C 41/29)
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by judgment of the Hof van
                                                                        Cassatie van BelgieÈ (Belgian Court of Cassation) of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  4 December 1997, received at the Court Registry on
European Communities by order of the Netherlands Raad                   11 December 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
van State (Council of State) of 25 November 1997,                       Leathertex Divisione Sintetici SpA against BVBA Bodetex
received at the Court Registry on 11 December 1997, for                 on the following question:
a preliminary ruling in the case of ARCO Chemie
Nederland Ltd v. Minister van Volkshuisvesting,
Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer (Minister for                      Are Article 5(1) and Article 2 of the Brussels Convention,
Housing, Planning and the Environment) on the following                 in the version applicable to the present case, to be
questions:                                                              interpreted as meaning that a composite claim founded on
                                                                        different obligations arising from the same contract may
                                                                        be brought before the same court, even though, according
                                                                        to the jurisdictional rules of the State in which the
1. May it be inferred from the mere fact that LUWA                      proceedings are brought, one of the contractual
     bottoms (1) undergo an operation listed in Annex II(B)             obligations on which the claim is based is to be performed
     to Directive 75/442/EEC (2) that that substance has                in that State and the other is to be performed in another
     been discarded so as to enable it to be regarded as                EC Member State, having regard to the fact that the court
     waste for the purposes of Directive 75/442/EEC?                    before which the proceedings are brought decides, on the
                                                                        basis of the claim brought before it, that neither of the
                                                                        two obligations forming the subject matter of the claim is
                                                                        subordinate to the other and that they are of equal rank?
2. If question 1 is to be answered in the negative, does
     the reply to the question whether the use of LUWA-
     bottoms as a fuel is to be regarded as constituting
     discarding depend on whether:
     (a) LUWA-bottoms             constitute    waste      under        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de
         contemporary thinking whereby it is of particular              Grande Instance de Meaux (First Chamber), by judgment
         relevance whether they may be recovered in an                  of 13 November 1997, in the case of Yves Tarantik and
         environmentally responsible manner for use as fuel                    Direction des Services Fiscaux, Seine-et-Marne
         without further processing,
                                                                                (Case C-421/97)
                                                                                (98/C 41/31)
     (b) the use of LUWA-bottoms as a fuel is comparable
         with an accepted method of waste recovery,
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by judgment of 13 November
     (c) the substance used is a main product or a by-                  1997 of the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Meaux
         product (residue)?                                             (Regional Court, Meaux), (First Chamber), which was
                                                                        received at the Court Registry on 11 December 1997, for
                                                                        a preliminary ruling in the case of Yves Tarantik v.
(1) The material known as LUWA-bottoms is one of the by-                Direction des Services Fiscaux (Central Tax Office), Seine-
    products of the production process used by the appellant. In        et-Marne, on the following questions:
    addition to propylene oxide and tertiary butyl alcohol the
    production process generates a flow of hydrocarbons
    containing molybdenum. The molybdenum is from catalysts             Considering the date of road authorization of the
    used for the production of the propylene oxide. In a plant          plaintiff's Jaguar car, which has a fiscal horsepower value
    intended for that purpose molybdenum is recovered from the          of 24 hp, bears the registration number 197 AT 77, and
    flow of hydrocarbons whereby the material designated by the         was first put on the road on 11 April 1979, and having
    appellant as LUWA-bottoms is obtained. LUWA-bottoms have
                                                                        regard to the graphical representations and outline of the
    a calorific value of 25 to 28 MJ/kg.
(2) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 47.                                         developments in taxation submitted by the plaintiff, on
                                                                        the one hand, and by the French tax authorities, on the
                                                                        other, does the system of taxation applied correspond to
                                                                        objective criteria lacking in any discriminatory effect
                                                                        prohibited by Article 95 of the EEC Treaty? In particular:
 ---pagebreak--- C 41/16               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                         7.2.98
Ð Is the progression coefficient existing between the tax                 matters relating exclusively to the fulfilment of
     band covering an imported vehicle of more than 18 hp                 obligations (clause 3) which account for the greater
     and the tax band covering a similar vehicle of 15 to                 part of the consideration payable (inasmuch as the
     16 hp discriminatory or not?                                         value of the immovable property itself amounts to Pta
                                                                          285 000 out of the sum of Pta 1 090 000 representing
                                                                          the total value of the contract)?
Ð Do the circulars of 28 December 1956, 23 December
     1977, 24 June 1987, 12 January 1988 and
     20 September 1991, as retroactively validated by                3. Is the complex of holiday time-share flats offered to
     Article 35 of the Finance (Amendment) Law of 22 June                 consumers in the town of Denia covered by the first
     1993, have the effect of making the tax discriminatory               indent of Article 1(1) of Directive 85/577/EEC, having
     in regard to owners of vehicles for which type-                      regard to the fact that the premises of Travel Vac, SL
     approval has not been granted in France, that is to say,             are located at 5Ð6o Calle Profesor BeltraÂn BaÂguena,
     vehicles approved on an individual basis?                            Valencia?
                                                                     4. Is the right of renunciation granted to the consumer by
Ð If the answer is yes, can the owner of a standard                       Article 5(1) of the Directive based on a presumption
     vehicle with a power rating in excess of 100 kW rely                 that the exercise of his free will has been affected or
     on that answer in order to plead, by application of the              manipulated as a result of the circumstances referred
     general principles of Community law such as equality                 to in Article 1 of the Directive; if so, to what extent is
     in regard to public charges and the provisions of the                that right of renunciation, as guaranteed by the
     European Convention on Human Rights and the                          Directive, founded on a connection with deceit
     Protocols thereto, that the tax is not payable on the                generally on the part of the vendor, in the form of the
     ground that it is discriminatory and inequitable?                    use by one of the contracting parties of insidious
                                                                          words or machinations which induce the other to
                                                                          enter into a contract which would not otherwise have
                                                                          been concluded' (Article 1269 of the Spanish Civil
                                                                          Code) and, generally, with the freely given consent
                                                                          which necessarily forms part of any contract (Articles
                                                                          1254, 1258, 1261 et seq. of the Spanish Civil Code)?
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de
Primera Instancia No 22 de Valencia, by order of that
court of 11 November 1997 in the case of Travel Vac, SL              5. Must the notice provided for by Article 5(1) of the
                v. Manuel JoseÂ Antelm Sanchís                            Directive be given expressly, or can it, where
                                                                          appropriate, take the form of specific unequivocal acts
                        (Case C-423/97)                                   such as, in the present case, the non-appearance of the
                                                                          consumer at the time stipulated and agreed for
                          (98/C 41/32)                                    signature of ratification on the Bank's premises, on
                                                                          17 September 1996, three days after signature of the
                                                                          contract appearing on page 76 in the case file, the
                                                                          consumer's position being evidenced and made clear
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                          by his appearance in the vendor's premises in Valencia
European Communities by order of the Juzgado de
                                                                          on the same day, 17 September 1996, when he stated
Primera Instancia (Court of First Instance) No 22,
                                                                          orally that it was all off and that the documents
Valencia, of 11 November 1997, which was received at
                                                                          which he had signed were to be returned to him'?
the Court Registry on 15 December 1997, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Travel Vac, SL v. Manuel
JoseÂ Antelm Sanchís on the following questions:
                                                                     6. Are the provisions of Article 7 of the Directive
                                                                          concerning the reimbursement of payments, the return
                                                                          of goods and other effects arising in favour of the
1. Are time-share contracts generally, and the contract at                vendor upon the exercise by the consumer of his right
     issue in the present case (page 76 in the case file) in              of renunciation pursuant to Article 5 compatible with
     particular, to be regarded as falling within the scope of            an agreement to pay compensation for damage caused
     Article 3(2)(a) of Directive 85/577/EEC (1), which                   to the vendor' in the form of a lump sum quantified at
     contains provisions excluding the application of that                25 % of the total price of the transaction, as laid down
     Directive?                                                           in clause 4 of the contract (on the reverse of page 76
                                                                          in the case file)?
2. Even if, by virtue of that Article, the contract at issue         (1) Council Directive 85/577/EEC of 20 December 1985 to
     in the present case, being a time-share contract, is                protect the consumer in respect of contracts negotiated away
     excluded from the application of that Directive, could              from business premises (OJ L 372, 13.12.1985, p. 31).
     such exclusion be negated by the fact that the contract
     is not concerned solely with immovable property but
     also involves the provision of services and other


title: Case T-113/03: Action brought on 31 March 2003 by Georgios Gouvras against Commission of the European Communities

text:
7.6.2003               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 135/35
                               —    Violation of the principle of         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                    continuity between the
                                    Opposition Division and the           —     annul the decisions of 30 April 2002 of the Director
                                    Board of Appeal in that the                 of the ‘Administration and Personnel Management for
                                    Board of Appeal refused to                  Luxembourg and Ispra’ Directorate in DG ADMIN refus-
                                    examine the applicant’s                     ing the applicant the installation allowance and daily
                                    request for proof of use.                   subsistence allowance during his secondment to Athens,
                                                                                and the installation allowance upon his return to Luxem-
                               —    Breach of Article 8(1) of
                                                                                bourg, and that limiting the transferable part of his salary
                                    Council Regulation 40/94 in
                                                                                to 35 % of his net emoluments from his place of
                                    that there is no likelihood of
                                                                                secondment to his place of work and habitual residence;
                                    confusion.
                               —    Breach of Article 8(2) (a) (ii)       —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                    of Council Regulation 40/94
                                    in that the Board of Appeal
                                    failed to assess whether the
                                    national trade mark could
                                    validly be invoked to oppose          Pleas in law and main arguments
                                    the Community trade mark
                                    application      under     the
                                    national legislation.                 The applicant, who was stationed in Luxembourg, was second-
                                                                          ed in the interests of the service to the Greek Ministry of
                                                                          Health in Athens. By its contested decisions, the defendant
                                                                          refused him the installation allowance and daily subsistence
( 1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the          allowance and limited the part of his salary he was allowed to
     Community trade mark (OJ 11, p. 1).                                  transfer to Luxembourg to 35 %.
( 2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December
     1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the
     Community trade mark (OJ L 303, p. 1).
                                                                          With regard to the refusal of the installation allowance and the
                                                                          daily subsistence allowance, the applicant claims infringement
                                                                          of Articles 5 and 10 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations in
                                                                          support of his arguments. With regard to the 35 % cap on the
                                                                          amount of his salary that he was allowed to transfer to
                                                                          Luxembourg, he claims infringement of Article 38(d) of the
                                                                          Staff Regulations and of Article 17 of Annex VII to the Staff
                                                                          Regulations.
Action brought on 31 March 2003 by Georgios Gouvras
     against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                          Action brought on 7 April 2003 by Samar SpA against
                          (Case T-113/03)                                 the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
                                                                                (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
                         (2003/C 135/56)
                                                                                (Case T-115/03)
                   (Language of the case: French)                                                  (2003/C 135/57)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
European Communities on 31 March 2003 by Georgios                         Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
Gouvras, resident in Bereldange, Luxembourg, represented by               the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis, Etienne Marchal and Sébastien             7 April 2003 by Samar SpA, represented by Alessandro Ruo,
Orlandi, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.              lawyer.