title: Case T-380/02: Action brought on 18 December 2002 by Success-Marketing Unternehmensberatungesellschaft m.b.H. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
26.4.2003                EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 101/35
annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May                    1.    The application for interim relief is dismissed.
2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed
against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin                2.    The costs are reserved.
Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, and repealing
Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 prohibiting the export
of certain goods and services to Afghanistan, strengthening
the flight ban and extending the freeze of funds and other
financial resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan (OJ
2002 L 139, p. 9), — the Court of First Instance (Second
Chamber), composed of N.J. Forwood, President, J. Pirrung and
A.W.H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on                     Action brought on 18 December 2002 by Success-Market-
3 February 2003, the operative part of which is as follows:                   ing Unternehmensberatungesellschaft m.b.H. against the
                                                                              Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
                                                                                Marks and Designs)
1.     The action is dismissed as inadmissible in so far as it is directed
       against the Commission.
                                                                                (Case T-380/02)
2.     The applicant is ordered to pay the costs relating to this part of                               (2003/C 101/66)
       the action.
                                                                              (Language of the case: to be determined in accordance with
                                                                              Article 131(2) of the Rules of Procedure — Application drafted in
( 1) OJ C 289 of 23.11.2002.
                                                                                German)
                                                                              An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                              Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
                                                                              Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                              18 December 2002 by Success-Marketing Unternehmensbera-
                                                                              tungesellschaft m.b.H., Linz (Austria), represented by G. Seck-
                                                                              lehner, Rechtsanwalt, with an address for service in Luxem-
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                                  bourg. Additional party before the Board of Appeal: Chipita
                             INSTANCE                                         International S.A., Athens.
                       of 19 December 2002                                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                              —     set aside the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the
in Case T-320/02 R: Monika Esch-Leonhardt and Others v                              Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of
                      European Central Bank                                         2 October 2002 ( 1);
                                                                              —     order the Office to allow restitution in integrum;
   (Proceedings for interim relief — Urgency — No urgency)
                                                                              —     order the Office to pay all the costs of the proceedings,
                                                                                including those for the procedure before the Board of
                          (2003/C 101/65)                                           Appeal.
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                              Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                              The applicant applied to the Office for registration of the word
In Case T-320/02 R: Monika Esch-Leonhardt, residing in                        mark ‘PAN & CO’ for goods and services of classes 11, 30, 35,
Frankfurt-am-Main (Germany), Tillmann Frommhold, residing                     37 and 42 (Application No 634287). Chipita International
in Karben (Germany), and Emmanuel Larue, residing in                          S.A., owner of the pictorial mark ‘PAN SPEZIALITÄTEN’ for
Frankfurt-am-Main, represented by B. Karthaus, Rechtsanwalt,                  goods of class 30 (Community Mark No 382374) lodged an
with an address for service in Luxembourg, against European                   opposition to such registration.
Central Bank (Agents: T. Gilliams, G. Gruber and B. Wägen-
baur) — application for the temporary removal of a document
from the personal files of the applicants — the President of the              The Opposition Division set a time-limit for the applicant to
Court of First Instance made an order on 19 December 2002,                    submit its position on the opposition. The applicant did not
the operative part of which is as follows:                                    submit a position within that time-limit. By decision of
 ---pagebreak--- C 101/36                 EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         26.4.2003
22 September 1999, the Opposition Division held the oppo-                    Action brought on 3 February 2003 by Leder & Schuh
sition to be justified and dismissed the application for certain             AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
goods of class 30.                                                                    Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
                                                                                (Case T-32/03)
The applicant argued that it was only in the context of an
enquiry with the Office that it learned that opposition to the                                        (2003/C 101/67)
mark had been raised as early as 1998, and that up to that
point it had received no notification that an opposition had
been lodged.                                                                 (Language of the case: to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
                                                                             of the Rules of Procedure — Language in which the application was
                                                                                submitted: German)
In June 2000, the applicant made an application for restitutio
in integrum in accordance with Article 78 of Regulation (EC)
No 40/94, an application for inspection of the files and an                  An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
application for costs. The Opposition Division dismissed the                 Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
application for restitutio in integrum by decision of 25 October             the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
2000. By the contested decision, the Board of Appeal dismissed               3 February 2003 by Leder & Schuh AG, Graz (Austria),
the applicant’s appeal.                                                      represented by W. Kellenter and A. Schaffge, lawyers.
                                                                             Schuhpark Fascies GmbH, Warendorf (Germany), was also a
                                                                             party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
The applicant argues that the contested decision infringed
                                                                             The applicant claims that the Court should:
essential procedural requirements, the Treaty and Regulation
(EC) No 40/94. It argues that it was deprived of the possibility
of defending its right to a fair hearing, as it was unable to                —     annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the
contact the opposing party during the ‘cooling-off’ period in                      Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
order to make a settlement, and it was not possible for it either                  Marks and Designs) of 27 November 2002, in the
to submit its reaction to the opposition or to lodge an appeal                     amended version of 9 December 2002, in Case R 494/
within the time-limits against the decision of the Opposition                      1999-3;
Division. Accordingly, despite using all the care required in the
circumstances, the applicant was prevented from complying                    —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
with Office’s time-limits and is therefore, it submits, entitled to
restitutio in integrum.
                                                                             Pleas in law and main arguments
The legal argument of the Board of Appeal, that an application
for restitutio in integrum is possible only within a year after              Applicant for Com-             The Applicant
the expiry of the missed time-limit, cannot be accepted. Under               munity trade mark:
that argument, the possibility of restitution is removed by a
restrictive interpretation of Article 78 of Regulation (EC)                  Community trade mark           The     word      mark       ‘JELLO
No 94/40 in the very circumstances where protection is most                  sought:                        SCHUHPARK’ for products in
needed, namely when no written document whatever was                                                        Classes 18, 25 and 28 (particu-
served.                                                                                larly leather and imitations of
                                                                                leather, products of those
                                                                                materials in so far as they fall
                                                                                within Class 18, clothing, foot-
                                                                                wear and toys — Application
Finally, proof of service merely in the form of a fax confir-                                               No 107367
mation which the Office may have can never be sufficient.
                                                                             Proprietor of mark or          Schuhpark Fascies GmbH
                                                                             sign cited in the oppo-
                                                                             sition proceedings:
( 1) Decision of the First Board of Appeal in Case R 26/2001-1.
                                                                             Mark or sign cited in          German word mark ‘Schuhpark’
                                                                             opposition:                    for products in Class 25 (particu-
                                                                                larly boots, ankle boots, slippers,
                                                                                shoes and sandals)


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) 19 February 2002 in Case C-366/00: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Incomplete transposition of Directive 97/11/EC)

text:
4.5.2002                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 109/13
—     a system imposing a minimum reference price on all                     Luxembourg (agent: J. Faltz): Application for a declaration
      cigarettes, and                                                        that, by failing to adopt or, in the alternative, to notify to
                                                                             the Commission, within the prescribed period, the laws,
—     a system imposing different tax rates on dark-tobacco                  regulations and administrative provisions necessary fully to
      and light-tobacco cigarettes, to the disadvantage of the               comply with Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997
      latter,                                                                amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the
the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under               effects of certain public and private projects on the environ-
Article 9(1), Article 8(2) and Article 16(5) of Council Directive            ment (OJ 1997 L 73, p. 5), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
95/59/EC of 27 November 1995 on taxes other than turnover                    has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty, the
taxes which affect the consumption of manufactured tobacco                   Court (Third Chamber), composed of: F. Macken, President of
(OJ 1995 L 291, p. 40), as amended by Council Directive                      the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur) and J.N. Cunha
1999/81/EC of 29 July 1999 (OJ 1999 L 211, p. 47), and                       Rodrigues, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass,
Article 2 of Council Directive 92/79/EEC of 19 October 1992                  Registrar has given a judgment on 19 February 2002, in which
on the approximation of taxes on cigarettes (OJ 1992 L 316,                  it:
p. 8), and under the first paragraph of Article 95 of the EC
Treaty (now, after amendment, the first paragraph of Article 90              1.    Declares that, by failing to bring into force, within the
EC), or alternatively under the second paragraph of Article 95                     prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative
of the EC Treaty, the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:                          provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
P. Jann, President of the Chamber, S. von Bahr (Rapporteur)                        97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC
and A. La Pergola, Judges; S. Albert, Advocate General;                            on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private
H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on                         projects on the environment, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
27 February 2002, in which it:                                                     has failed to fulfil its obligations under the first subparagraph
                                                                                of Article 3(1) of that directive and under the EC Treaty;
1.    Declares that, by maintaining in force
      —     a system imposing a minimum reference price on all               2.    Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
            cigarettes sold under the same brand and
      —     a system imposing a different rate of tax for dark- and          (1) OJ C 316 of 4.11.2000.
            light-tobacco cigarettes, to the detriment of the latter,
      the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      Article 9(1), Article 8(2) and Article 16(5) of Council Directive
      95/59/EC of 27 November 1995 on taxes other than turnover
      taxes which affect the consumption of manufactured tobacco, as
      amended by Council Directive 1999/81/EC of 29 July 1999,                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      Article 2 of Council Directive 92/79/EEC of 19 October 1992
      on the approximation of taxes on cigarettes and the first
      paragraph of Article 95 of the EC Treaty;                                                         (Sixth Chamber)
2.    The French Republic is ordered to pay the costs.                                                    5 March 2002
(1) OJ C 285 of 7.10.2000.
                                                                             in Case C-386/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                             the Cour d’Appel de Bruxelles): Axa Royale Belge SA v
                                                                                Georges Ochoa Stratégie Finance SPRL (1)
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      (Directive 92/96/EEC — Direct life assurance — Infor-
                                                                                mation for policy-holders)
                          (Third Chamber)
                          19 February 2002                                                              (2002/C 109/21)
in Case C-366/00: Commission of the European Communi-
             ties v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)                                                 (Language of the case: French)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
       Incomplete transposition of Directive 97/11/EC)                                           in the European Court Reports)
                           (2002/C 109/20)
                     (Language of the case: French)                          In Case C-386/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
                                                                             EC by the Cour d’Appel de Bruxelles (Belgium) for a preliminary
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                             ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             Axa Royale Belge SA and Georges Ochoa Stratégie Finance
                                                                             SPRL, on the interpretation of Council Directive 92/96/EEC of
In Case C-366/00, Commission of the European Communities                     10 November 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations
(agents: R. Tricot and P. Panayotopoulos) v Grand Duchy of                   and administrative provisions relating to direct life assurance


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 12 May 1998 in Case T-184/94: Martin O'Casey v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant's candidature for the post of assistant to the Deputy Director of the ITER joint work site at Naka, Japan - Offer of the post - Breach of the agreement - Claim for damages)

text:
4.7.98               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 209/29
          Removal from the register of C-22/95 (1)                 preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Amministrativo
                        (98/C 209/60)                              Regionale, Lazio): Nuova Antenna Tre SpA v. Ministero
                                                                   delle Poste e Telecomunicazioni.
By order of 3 March 1998 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-22/95 (reference for a         (1) OJ C 74, 25.3.1995.
                                                  COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                       of 12 May 1998                                                     of 14 May 1998
in Case T-184/94: Martin O'Casey v. Commission of the              in Case T-295/94: Buchmann GmbH v. Commission of
                  European Communities (1)                                         the European Communities (1)
(Officials Ð Annulment of the decision rejecting the               (Competition Ð Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty Ð Proof
applicant's candidature for the post of assistant to the           of participation in collusion Ð Fine Ð Determination of
Deputy Director of the ITER joint work site at Naka,                           the amount Ð Statement of reasons)
Japan Ð Offer of the post Ð Breach of the agreement Ð                                      (98/C 209/62)
                     Claim for damages)
                        (98/C 209/61)                                             (Language of the case: German)
                                                                   In Case T-295/94: Buchmann GmbH, established at
               (Language of the case: English)                     Rinnthal, Germany, represented by Helmut Braun, Rechts-
                                                                   anwalt, Dresden, 21 Bergmannstraûe, Dresden, Germany
                                                                   v. Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
In Case T-184/94: Martin O'Casey, a member of the                  Bernd Langeheine, Richard Lyal and Dirk Schroeder) Ð
temporary staff of the JET Joint Undertaking, represented          application for annulment of Commission Decision 94/
by Georges Vandersanden, of the Brussels Bar, and Teertha          601/EC of 13 July 1994 relating to a proceeding under
Gupta, Barrister, with an adress for service in Luxembourg         Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/C/33.833 Ð Cartonboard,
at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de                 OJ, L 243 of 19.9.1994, p. 1) Ð the Court (Third
Cessange v. Commission of the European Communities                 Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of B.
(Agents: Ana Maria Alves Vieira and Richard Lyal) Ð                Vesterdorf, President of the Chamber, C. P. BrieÈt, P. Lindh,
Application for annulment of the letter from the Deputy            A. Potocki and J. D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio GonzaÂlez,
Director of the International Thermonuclear Experimental           Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
Reactor and head of the joint work site at Naka, Japan, of         14 May 1998 in which it:
16 July 1993 informing the applicant that his candidature
for the post of administrative assistant to the said Deputy
Director was rejected and of the decision contained in that        1. Annuls, as regards the applicant, the eighth indent of
letter to reject his candidature, and for damages to                   Article 1 of Commission Decision 94/601/EC of
compensate for the material and non-material harm thus                 13 July 1994 relating to a proceeding under Article 85
suffered by the applicant Ð the Court of First Instance                of the EC Treaty (IV/C/33.833 Ð Cartonboard).
(Fifth Chamber), composed of J. Azizi, President, R.
García-Valdecasas and M. Jaeger, Judges; J. Palacio                2. Sets the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant
GonzaÂlez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a               by Article 3 of Decision 94/601/EC at ECU
judgment on 12 May 1998 in which it:                                   2 150 000.
1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible.                           3. Dismisses the application as regards the remaining
                                                                       claims.
2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.                     4. Orders the applicant to pay the costs, including the
                                                                       costs of the proceedings for interim relief.
(1) OJ C 188, 9.7.1994.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 351, 10.12.1994.


               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/53

         Removal from the register of Case C-164/03 (1)

   (2004/C 106/100)
   By order of 16 March 2004, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-164/03: Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria

      (1)  OJ C 146 of 21. 6. 2003


title: Case C-97/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van Beroep voor het Bedrĳfsleven by judgment of that Court of 7 January 2003 in the proceedings between Mr and Mrs T.H.J.M. van Schaĳk and Directeur van de Rĳksdienst voor de keuring van Vee en Vlees

text:
21.6.2003              EN                     Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 146/15
2.    Does Directive 85/511/EEC (1), as amended by Directive          Action brought on 28 February 2003 by the Commission
      90/423/EEC (2), afford the Member States scope to (order        of the European Communities against the Federal Repub-
      or) take supplementary national measures to control foot-                                lic of Germany
      and-mouth disease?
3.    What limits does Community law place on a Member                                          (Case C-98/03)
      State with regard to taking supplementary national
      measures other than those provided for in Directive 85/
      511/EEC, as amended by Directive 90/423/EEC?                                            (2003/C 146/26)
( 1) OJ L 315 [1985], p. 11.
( 2) OJ L 224 [1990], p. 13.
                                                                      An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
                                                                      brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                                                                      ties on 28 February 2003 by the Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities, represented by Ulrich Wölker, Legal Adviser of
                                                                      the Commission of the European Communities, with an
                                                                      address for service in Luxembourg.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van
Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven by judgment of that Court               The applicant claims that the Court should:
of 7 January 2003 in the proceedings between Mr and
Mrs T.H.J.M. van Schaijk and Directeur van de Rijksdienst
               voor de keuring van Vee en Vlees                       1.    Declare that
                           (Case C-97/03)                                   —    by not providing for the duty to carry out an
                                                                                assessment of the implications in the case of certain
                                                                                projects outside special areas of conservation, as
                          (2003/C 146/25)                                        referred to in Article 4(1) of Council Directive 92/
                                                                                43/EEC ( 1) of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of
                                                                                natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, which
                                                                                pursuant to Article 6(3) and (4) of the directive are
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                           to be subject to such an assessment irrespective of
European Communities by judgment of the College van Beroep                       whether those projects are likely to have a significant
voor het Bedrijfsleven (Administrative Court for Trade and                       effect on an area of special conservation;
Industry) of 7 January 2003, received at the Court Registry on
4 March 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                   —    by authorising emissions in a special area of conser-
between Mr and Mrs T.H.J.M. van Schaijk and Directeur van                        vation, irrespective of whether they are likely to
de Rijksdienst voor de keuring van Vee en Vlees on the                           have a significant effect on that area;
following questions:
1.    May a Member State derive from Community law the                      —    by derogating from the scope of the provisions
      power to decide to kill animals which are suspected of                     concerning the protection of species in the case of
      being infected or contaminated with the foot-and-mouth                     certain non-deliberate effects on protected animals;
      virus?
                                                                            —    by failing to ensure compliance with the criteria for
2.    Does Directive 85/511/EEC (1), as amended by Directive                     derogation set out in Article 16 of the directive in
      90/423/EEC (2), afford the Member States scope to (order                   the case of certain activities which are supposed to
      or) take supplementary national measures to control foot-                  be compatible with conservation of an area;
      and-mouth disease?
                                                                            —    by retaining provisions on the application of pestic-
3.    What limits does Community law place on a Member                           ides which do not take sufficient account of the
      State with regard to taking supplementary national                         protection of species;
      measures other than those provided for in Directive 85/
      511/EEC, as amended by Directive 90/423/EEC?
                                                                            —    by failing to notify fishery catch legislation and/or
                                                                                to ensure that such legislation contains adequate
( 1) OJ L 315 [1985], p. 11.                                                     bans on fishing,
( 2) OJ L 224 [1990], p. 13.
                                                                            the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its
                                                                            obligations under the directive.


title: Case C-497/08: Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 January 2010 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Charlottenburg — Germany) — Amiraike Berlin GmbH (Non-contentious proceedings — Appointment of the liquidator of a company — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

text:
               13.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/19

         Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 January 2010 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Charlottenburg — Germany) — Amiraike Berlin GmbH
   (Case C-497/08) (1)

   (Non-contentious proceedings - Appointment of the liquidator of a company - Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)
   2010/C 63/29
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Charlottenburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Amiraike Berlin GmbH

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Amtsgericht Charlottenburg — Interpretation of Arts 10, 43 and 48 of the EC Treaty — Recognition by a Member State of an expropriatory measure concerning assets situated in its territory, ordered by the legal system of another Member State — Removal of a limited liability company under United Kingdom law from the register at Companies House for failure to fulfil publicity obligations, resulting in the forfeiture of its assets, including real estate situated in Germany, to the United Kingdom crown.

      Operative part

   The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly has no jurisdiction to rule on the question referred by the Amtsgericht Charlottenburg in its decision of 7 November 2008.

      (1)  OJ C 113, 16.5.2009.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht Köln by order of that court of 16 July 1997 in the case of DE + ES Bauunternehmung GmbH against Finanzamt Bergheim (Case C-275/97)

text:
C 295/ 18                   EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                        27 . 9 . 97
4. Is the policy adopted by a Member State of excluding                          incurred, or certain to be incurred but uncertain as
     all women during peace time and/or in preparation for                       to amount or as to the date on which they will
     war, from service as interoperable marines capable of                       arise ( Article 20 ( 1 )),
     being excluded from the ambit of Council Directive
     76/207/EEC by virtue of the operation of Article 224 ?                  — provisions are not to be used to adjust the values
     If so, what guidelines or criteria should be applied in                     of assets ( Article 20 ( 3 )),
     order to determine whether the said policy may
     properly be so excluded from the ambit of Directive
                                                                             — account is to be taken of all foreseeable liabilities
     76/207/EEC by reason of Article 224 ?
                                                                                and potential losses arising in the course of the
                                                                                financial year concerned or of a previous one, even
5. Is the policy adopted by a Member State of excluding                          if such liabilities or losses become apparent only
                                                                                between the date of the balance sheet and the date
     all women during peace time and/or in preparation for
     war from service as interoperable marines capable of                        on which it is drawn up ( Article 31 ( 1 ) (c ) ( bb )),
     being justified under Article 2 ( 2 ) of Council Directive
     76/207/EEC ?                                                            — the components of asset and liability items are to
                                                                                be valued separately (Article 31 ( 1 ) ( e ) ) ,
6. If so, what is the test to be applied by a national                       — provisions are not to exceed in amount the sums
     tribunal when considering whether or not the                                which are necessary ( first paragraph of Article 42 ),
     application of the policy is justified ?
                                                                             where a building construction undertaking, which uses
(') Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the
    implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men               subcontractors in addition to its own employees to
    and women as regards access to employment, vocational                    perform its contracts, does not make individual
    training and promotion, and working conditions ( OJ L 39,                provision, taking into account the individual liabilities
    14 . 2 . 1976 , p. 40 ).                                                 under warranties inherent in particular contracts, for
                                                                             indemnity liabilities not arising until after the date of
                                                                             the balance sheet, but makes global provision therefor
                                                                             by way of a fixed percentage of the turnover subject to
                                                                             warranties ?
                                                                         2 . If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative :
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht
Koln by order of that court of 16 July 1997 in the case of
DE + ES Bauunternehmung GmbH against Finanzamt                               Subject to what preconditions, in accordance with
                                 Bergheim                                    what valuation criteria and in what percentage,
                             Case C-2 75/97 )                                possibly assessed by the business itself, may such
                                                                             global provision be made, regard also being had to
                              ( 97/C 295/27 )                                any rights of recourse against employees of the
                                                                             business and subcontractors, which are enforceable
                                                                             only to a limited extent, and, in the event of doubts as
                                                                             to the amount of the provision needed, who bears the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                             disadvantage of the fact that the matter is not
European Communities by order of the Thirteenth                              susceptible of proof?
Chamber of the Finanzgericht Koln ( Finance Court,
Cologne ) of 16 July 1997, received at the Court Registry
on 30 July 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
DE + ES Bauunternehmung GmbH against Finanzamt
( Tax Office ) Bergheim on the following questions:
                                                                         Action brought on 30 July 1997 by the Commission of the
1 . Is there compliance with the accounting rules laid                       European Communities against the French Republic
     down by the Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC of
     25 July 1978 on annual accounts ( OJ L 222, 14 . 8 .                                        ( Case C-276/97 )
     1978 , p. 11 ), under which :                                                                 ( 97/C 295/28 )
     — the annual accounts are to give a true and fair
          view of the company's assets, liabilities, financial           An action against the French Republic was brought before
          position and profit or loss ( Article 2 ( 3 )),                the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                         30 July 1997 by the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities, represented by Helene Michard and Enrico
     — provisions are intended to cover losses or debts the              Traversa , acting as Agents, with an address for service in
          nature of which is clearly defined and which at the            Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
          date of the balance sheet are either likely to be              Wagner Centre, Kirchberg .


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de Première Instance de Bruxelles (Sixth Chamber) by judgment of that court of 10 November 1998 in the case of Colonia Versicherung Aktiengesellschaft, Zweigniederlassung München and 17 others against the Belgian State, Minister of Finance, Customs and Excise Administration (Case C-422/98)

text:
23.1.1999               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 20/21
additional training required in order to obtain the                    Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad
corresponding title in the host Member State, Article 16               der Nederlanden by judgment of that court of 6 November
provides that that State may require the migrant architect             1998 in the case of Marca Mode CV against 1. Adidas AG
to use the title employed in his Member State of origin or                               and 2. Adidas Benelux BV
the Member State from which he comes in a suitable
form' to be specified by the host Member State. The                                           (Case C-425/98)
Directive does not authorise the host Member State to                                          (1999/C 20/35)
adopt other measures, such as the imposition of an
obligation requiring the architect in question to work in
collaboration with a professional person who is qualified
in the host Member State to pursue to the activities for
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
which the migrant architect has not received the
                                                                       European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad
prescribed training. Such measures constitute a
                                                                       der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) of
disproportionate restriction on the architect's freedom of
                                                                       6 November 1998, received at the Court Registry on
establishment and, a fortiori, on freedom to provide
                                                                       26 November 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
services.
                                                                       Marca Mode CV against 1. Adidas AG and 2. Adidas
                                                                       Benelux BV on the following question:
(1) Boletin Oficial del Estado No 214 of 7 September 1989.
(2) OJ L 223, 21.8.1985, p. 15.
                                                                       Where:
                                                                       (a) a trade mark has a particularly distinctive character,
                                                                            either per se or because of the reputation it enjoys
                                                                            with the public; and
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de
PremieÁre Instance de Bruxelles (Sixth Chamber) by
judgment of that court of 10 November 1998 in the case
of Colonia Versicherung Aktiengesellschaft, Zweignieder-               (b) a third party, without the consent of the proprietor of
lassung München and 17 others against the Belgian State,                    the mark, uses, in the course of trade in goods or
  Minister of Finance, Customs and Excise Administration                    services which are identical with, or similar to, those
                                                                            for which the trade mark is registered, a sign which
                         (Case C-422/98)                                    so closely corresponds to the mark as to create a
                                                                            likelihood of its being associated with that mark,
                          (1999/C 20/34)
                                                                       must Article 5(1)(b) of Directive 89/104/EEC (1) be
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 interpreted as meaning that the exclusive right enjoyed by
European Communities by judgment of the Sixth                          the proprietor entitles him to prevent the use of the sign
Chamber of the Tribunal de PremieÁre Instance de                       by that third party if the distinctive character of the mark
Bruxelles (Court of First Instance, Brussels) of                       is such that the possibility of such association giving rise
10 November 1998, received at the Court Registry on                    to confusion cannot be ruled out?
26 November 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Colonia Versicherung Aktiengesellschaft, Zweigniederlas-
sung München and 17 others v. Belgian State, Minister of               (1) OJ L 40, 11.2.1989, p. 1.
Finance, Customs and Excise Administration on the
following question:
Does not Paragraph 210 of the Ministerial Decree of
22 January 1948, by requiring an importer into Belgium
of manufactured tobacco products to which tax bands are                Action brought on 26 November 1998 by the Commission
affixed, where those products are not fit for consumption,             of the European Communities against the Hellenic
to destroy them in Belgium under the supervision of the                                            Republic
Belgian customs authorities and by not according
probative value to documents drawn up by the customs                                          (Case C-426/98)
authorities of another Member State as proof of such
                                                                                (1999/C 20/36)
destruction constitute a measure having effects equivalent
to a quantitative restriction?'
                                                                       An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought
                                                                       before the Court of Justice of the European Communities


title: Action brought on 10 August 1998 by Enrico Sabbioni against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-129/98)

text:
C 327/30              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   24.10.98
Ð in the alternative, accord the product favourable tariff          The applicant claims that the Court should:
    arrangements on the ground of its particular use;
                                                                    Ð annul the contested provisions and, primarily, the
                                                                        decision of 17 October 1997, whereby the
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs of these                        Commission transferred him of its own motion to
    proceedings.                                                        another division;
                                                                    Ð order the Commission to pay the applicant ECU
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     10 000 by way of compensation for non-material
                                                                        damage;
The applicant is the importer of a product called                   Ð order the Commission to pay all expenses and costs
Lyostart', which is used exclusively as a culture medium               incurred in the proceedings.
and is thus classified under CN code 3821 00 00. In
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1160/98 of 2 June 1998
concerning the classification of certain goods in the               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Combined Nomenclature (1), the defendant classified
certain products, including the product in issue, under CN
code 0404 90 21, on the ground that they could not be               The applicant, who is an official on the scientific and
considered to be culture media for the development of               technical staff of the Joint Research Centre at Ispra
micro-organisms.                                                    contests a number of decisions by means of which he was
                                                                    transferred to another unit, removed from his duties as
                                                                    head of security for Buildings Nos 46, 46d and 32b and
                                                                    from the Centre's Committee for radioactive and fissile
The applicant submits that the contested decision was               material (hereinafter the Committee').
taken without its being heard and, moreover, without
seeking the opinion required by Article 190 of the EC
Treaty. Moreover, classification under CN code                      The applicant puts forward the following pleas in support
0404 90 21 expressly refers to agri-food products such as           of his claims:
milk and its by-products, while heading 3821 00 00 covers
prepared culture media in which micro-organisms required
for scientific purposes or in industry can find nourishment         Ð Failure to state adequate reasons for the contested
and multiply. On that point, it is important to stress that             measures. Despite the fact that the contested decisions
there is no alternative to the use of milk by-products for              had a considerable impact on the applicant's
the industrial development of lactic ferments.                          administrative situation, they consist only of an
                                                                        operative part, baldly stated. In particular, the reasons
                                                                        for removing the applicant from the Committee are
(1) OJ L 160, 4.6.1998, p. 20.
                                                                        obscure and incomprehensible.
                                                                    Ð Misuse of powers. The intention underlying the
                                                                        applicant's removal was to get rid of an official whose
                                                                        legitimate expectation Ð of being appointed head of
                                                                        the unit of which he had once been in charge Ð had
                                                                        been frustrated and who, through no fault of his own,
Action brought on 10 August 1998 by Enrico Sabbioni                     had become a source of embarrassment and a living
   against the Commission of the European Communities                   reproach.
                       (Case T-129/98)
                         (98/C 327/53)                              Ð Breach of the safety regulations. Closure of the
                                                                        laboratories in Buildings Nos 46, 46d and 32b and
                                                                        the applicant's removal from his duties as official
                                                                        responsible for security constitute a specific
                (Language of the case: Italian)                         infringement of the safety regulations governed by
                                                                        agreement and those in force at the Centre. Closure of
                                                                        those buildings took place without any advance
                                                                        notification and with absolutely no regard for the
An action against the Commission of the European                        research in progress; the standing closure systems were
Communities was brought before the Court of First                       replaced and it was thus impossible for security
Instance of the European Communities on 10 August                       officers to ensure that the operation was properly
1998 by Enrico Sabbioni, represented by Giuseppe                        monitored.
Marchesini, of the Vicenza Bar, with an address for service
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, Rue
Mathias Hardt.


title: Case T-329/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 December 2007 — UPS Europe and UPS Deutschland v Commission

text:
               9.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/33

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 December 2007 — UPS Europe and UPS Deutschland v Commission
   (Case T-329/07) (1)

   (2008/C 37/54)

      Language of the case: English

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

      (1)  OJ C 247, 20.10.2007.


title: Case T-343/16: Action brought on 29 June 2016 — Trane v Commission

text:
               16.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/37

         Action brought on 29 June 2016 — Trane v Commission
   (Case T-343/16)
   (2016/C 296/47)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Trane (Zaventem, Belgium) (represented by: H. Gilliams and J. Bocken, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission decision of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption state aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by the Kingdom of Belgium;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Articles 2-4 of the Decision;

               —

               in any event, annul Articles 2-4 of that Decision in so far as these Articles (a) require recovery from entities other than the entities that have been issued an ‘excess profit ruling’ as defined in the Decision and (b) require the recovery of an amount equal to the beneficiary’s tax savings, without allowing Belgium to take into account an actual upwards adjustment by another tax administration;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment, excess of power and failure to provide adequate reasons in so far as the Commission decision of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption state aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by the Kingdom of Belgium alleges the existence of an aid scheme.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 107 TFUE and of the duty to state reasons and manifest error of assessment in so far as the contested decision qualifies the purported scheme as a selective measure.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 107 TFUE and manifest error of assessment in so far as the contested decision asserts that the purported scheme gives rise to an advantage.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 107 TFUE, infringement of legitimate expectations, manifest error of assessment, excess of power and failure to provide adequate reasons in so far as the contested decision order Belgium to recover aid.


title: Action brought on 12 December 1996 by Società Acciaierie di Bolzano SpA against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-158/96)

text:
22 . 2 . 97            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 54/21
                ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT                                — take any other measure necessary or which it considers
           OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  appropriate or equitable,
                      of 11 December 1996
in Case T-235/95 R II: Anthony Goldstein v. Commission                — order the Commission to pay the costs .
                 of the European Communities
(Competition — Interim measures — Interlocutory                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
  proceedings — New application — New facts — None)
                              97/C 54/34 )
                                                                      The applicant contests the decision declaring illegal the aid
                                                                      which it received under Provincial Law No 25 of the
                (Language of the case: English)                       Province of Bolzano (' the Province') of 8 September 1981
                                                                      on financial assistance for industry inasmuch as, first, it
                                                                      had not been notified prior to its award and, secondly, it
In Case T-235/95 R II : Anthony Goldstein, a medical                  is incompatible with the common market within the
practitioner residing in London , represented by Raymond              meaning of Article 4 ( c ) of the ECSC Treaty. The aid at
St John Murphy, Solicitor, against Commission of the                  issue consists specifically of six resolutions of the Province
European Communities ( Agent : Richard Lyal ) — further               covering the period from 14 December 1983 to 4 July
application for an interlocutory order for interim measures           1988 relating to 10-years loans granted at a subsidized
— the President of the Court of First Instance made an                rate of interest of 3 % for a total of Lit 25 849 million ,
order on 1 1 December 1996 , the operative part of which              and to capital grants for a total of Lit 22 634 million .
is as follows :
                                                                      The contested decision deems the aid incompatible
1 . The application for interim measures is dismissed.                because , according to the applicant, payment of the loan
                                                                      which constituted the aid took place after the end of
2.   Costs are reserved.                                              validity of Decision 2320/ 81 ( 31 December 1985 ). An
                                                                      aspect which was merely formal thus took on substantive
                                                                      importance because the aid in question was deemed to fall
                                                                      within the scope of the Steel Aid Code which entered into
                                                                      force subsequently (1 January 1986 ). From that point of
                                                                      view, the compatibility of aid granted even 10 years later
                                                                      should be deemed compatible with the legislation in force
Action brought on 12 December 1996 by Societa                         at the time when the decision granting it was taken ,
Acciaierie di Bolzano SpA against the Commission of the               irrespective of whether different rules were in force then
                     European Communities                             or that different conditions were extant which justified the
                                                                      granting of aid . The applicant argues that the
                         ( Case T-158/96 )
                                                                      Commission's conduct is in breach of the principles of
                            ( 97/C 54/35 )                            retroactivity of legislation , good faith , legitimate
                                                                      expectations and legal certainty. The Commission has also
                                                                      breached the principle of proportionality, since even if
                 (Language of the case: Italian)                      repayment is due, the sacrifice involved for the recipient
                                                                      undertaking would be excessive and disproportionate .
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                      As regards the lawfulness of the aid with regard to the
Instance of the European Communities on 12 December                   substance, the applicant maintains that the decision which
1996 by Societa Acciaierie di Bolzano SpA, represented by             is the subject-matter of the dispute did not take into
Giulio Macri , of the Milan Bar, Bruno Nascimbene , of the            account the amount or the level of the aid itself, its
Milan Bar, and Massimo Condinanzi, of the Biella Bar,
                                                                      proportion in relation to the actual needs of the
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                      undertaking, its effects, which do not distort competition
Chambers of Franco Colussi , 36 rue Wiltz .
                                                                      or affect the conditions of trade, or the conformity of
                                                                      those effects with the common objectives laid down in
The applicant claims that the Court should :                          Decision 2320/81 , which was applicable when the aid in
                                                                      question was granted . In this latter regard the applicant
                                                                      points out the tendency to extend the benefits arising from
— annul Commission Decision No C(96 ) 2064 final of                   the EC Treaty and the ECSC Treaty, thus increasing the
     17 July 1996 ,                                                   consistency between the various Community sub-systems .
— declare non-existent the obligation to repay the State              Finally, the decision is illogical inasmuch as it does not
     aids granted after 1 January 1986 , as provided for in           provide an adequate statement of reasons as regards the
     Article 2 of the contested Decision , and that therefore         determination of the rates of interest .
     no debt has been incurred and, likewise, that no debt
     has been incurred in respect of the interest provided
     for in that Article ,


title: Case T-136/08: Action brought on 4 April 2008 — Aurelia Finance v OHIM (AURELIA)

text:
               24.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 128/36

         Action brought on 4 April 2008 — Aurelia Finance v OHIM (AURELIA)
   (Case T-136/08)
   (2008/C 128/76)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Aurelia Finance SA (Geneva, Switzerland) (represented by M. Elmslie, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Decision of the First Board of Appeal of 9 January 2008 in case R 1214/2007-1;

               —

               Remit the applicant's application for restitutio in integrum to OHIM for reconsideration; and

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: A word mark consisting of the word AURELIA for various services in class 36 — application No 274 936

      Decision of the OHIM: Refusal of the application for restitutio in integrum

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 78 of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the standard of due care required in connection with administrative renewals is lower than that for a party to proceedings before OHIM.


title: Case C-223/15: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — combit Software GmbH v Commit Business Solutions Ltd (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — European Union trade mark — Unitary character — Finding of a likelihood of confusion in respect of only part of the European Union — Territorial scope of the prohibition referred to in Article 102 of that regulation)

text:
               14.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 419/19

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — combit Software GmbH v Commit Business Solutions Ltd
   (Case C-223/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - European Union trade mark - Unitary character - Finding of a likelihood of confusion in respect of only part of the European Union - Territorial scope of the prohibition referred to in Article 102 of that regulation))
   (2016/C 419/24)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: combit Software GmbH

      Defendant: Commit Business Solutions Ltd

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 1(2), Article 9(1)(b) and Article 102(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the European Union trade mark must be interpreted as meaning that, where an EU trade mark court finds that the use of a sign creates a likelihood of confusion with an EU trade mark in one part of the European Union whilst not creating such a likelihood in another part thereof, that court must conclude that there is an infringement of the exclusive right conferred by that trade mark and issue an order prohibiting the use in question for the entire area of the European Union with the exception of the part in respect of which there has been found to be no likelihood of confusion.

      (1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.


title: Case C-321/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil de A Coruña (Spain) lodged on 28 June 2011 — Germán Rodríguez Cachafeiro and Maria Reyes Martínez-Reboredo Varela-Villamayor v Iberia Líneas Aéreas de España S.A.

text:
               24.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/3

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil de A Coruña (Spain) lodged on 28 June 2011 — Germán Rodríguez Cachafeiro and Maria Reyes Martínez-Reboredo Varela-Villamayor v Iberia Líneas Aéreas de España S.A.
   (Case C-321/11)
   2011/C 282/04
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de lo Mercantil de A Coruña

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Germán Rodríguez Cachafeiro and Maria Reyes Martínez-Reboredo Varela-Villamayor

      Defendant: Iberia Líneas Aéreas de España S.A.

      Question referred

   May the definition of ‘denied boarding’ contained in Article 2(j), in conjunction with Article 3(2) and 4(3), of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004, (1) be regarded as including a situation in which an airline refuses to allow boarding because the first flight included in the ticket is subject to a delay ascribable to the airline and the latter erroneously expects the passengers not to arrive in time to catch the second flight, and so allows their seats to be taken by other passengers?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004
   establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (Text with EEA relevance) — Commission Statement; OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.


title: Case C-390/10: Action brought on 3 August 2010 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               9.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 274/16

         Action brought on 3 August 2010 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-390/10)
   ()
   2010/C 274/23
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Braun and L. de Schietere de Lophem, Agents)

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2007/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the exercise of certain rights of shareholders in listed companies (1) or, in any event, by not communicating such measures to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period prescribed for transposing Directive 2007/36/EC expired on 3 August 2009. As at the date on which the present action was brought, the defendant had not yet adopted all the measures necessary to transpose the directive or, in any event, had not notified the Commission thereof.

      (1)  OJ L 184, p. 17.


title: Case T-80/15 P: Order of the General Court of 22 October 2015 — Macchia v Commission (Appeal — Civil Service — Temporary staff — Fixed-term contract — Decision not to renew — Interest of the service — Duty of care — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

text:
               21.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 429/26

         Order of the General Court of 22 October 2015 — Macchia v Commission
   (Case T-80/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Civil Service - Temporary staff - Fixed-term contract - Decision not to renew - Interest of the service - Duty of care - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded))
   (2015/C 429/34)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Luigi Macchia (Rome, Italy) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Blot, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal lodged against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 12 December 2014 in Macchia v Commission, F-63/11 RENV, ECR-SC, EU:F:2014:272, seeking to have that order set aside.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Luigi Macchia shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission in the present instance.

      (1)  OJ C 127, 20.4.2015.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, by order of that court of 28 February 1996, in the case of The Queen against Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, ex parte: (1) Consumers' Association; (2) Which (?) Ltd (Case C-82/96)

text:
 18 . 5 . 96            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 145/3
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hessisches                  ( 1 ) states criteria to identify private persons or
Finanzgericht by order of that court of 7 March 1996                          organizations having a legitimate interest in protecting
in the case of Quelle Schickedanz AG and Co. v.                               consumers, and
                 Oberfinanzdirektion Frankfurt/M.
                          ( Case C-80/96 )                              ( 2 ) allows such private persons or organizations to take
                                                                              action before the courts or before competent
                             ( 96/C 145/04 )                                  administrative bodies for a decision as to whether
                                                                              contractual terms drawn up for general use are
                                                                              unfair ?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Hessisches
Finanzgericht ( Hessen Finance Court) of 7 March 1 996,                 (') OJ No L 95 , 21 . 4 . 1993 , p . 29 .
which was received at the Court Registry on 18 March
 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Quelle
Schickedanz         AG   and       Co . v.   Oberfinanzdirektion
Frankfurt/M. on the following questions :
( a ) Where goods put up in sets for retail sale, comprising a          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte Suprema di
      brassière and briefs, are classified individually pursuant        Cassazione — First Civil Division — by order of that court
      to the Annex to Commission Regulation ( EC )                      of 4 December 1995 in the case of Provincia Autonoma di
      No 1966/94 of 28 July 1994 concerning the                         Trento and Ufficio del Medico Provinciale di Trento against
      classification of certain goods in the combined                                    Dega di Depretto Gino Snc
      nomenclature ( OJ No L 198 , 30 . 7. 1994, p . 193 ), is                                    ( Case C-83/96 )
      that classification valid, inasmuch as it thereby conflicts
      with Rule 3 ( b ) of the general rules for the                                                ( 96/C 145/06 )
      interpretation of the combined nomenclature ?
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
( b ) If the answer to question ( a ) is in the negative :              European Communities by an order of the First Civil
                                                                        Division of the Corte Suprema di Cassazione of 4 December
      Is a set put up for retail sale, comprising a knitted             1995 , which was received at the Court Registry on
      brassière and knitted briefs, covered by code number              18 March 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                        Provincia Autonoma di Trento and Ufficio del Medico
      6212 10 00 because the brassière fails to be regarded, in
      accordance with Rule 3 ( b ) of the said general rules, as        Provinciale di Trento against Dega di Depretto Gino Snc on
      the component which gives the goods their essential               the following question :
      character ?
                                                                        Must Article 3 ( 1 ) ( 6 ) of Council Directive 79/112/EEC on
                                                                        the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating
                                                                        to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs
                                                                        for sale to the ultimate consumer (*) be interpreted as
                                                                        meaning that the expression 'established within the
                                                                        Community' used in it, refers only to the seller or refers, in
                                                                        the absence of a seller established within the Community,
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of                 also to the manufacturer and/or packager ? Must that
Justice, Queen's Bench Division, by order of that court of              provision therefore be taken to mean that, in the absence of
28 February 1996, in the case of The Queen against                      a seller established in the Community, the manufacturer
Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, ex parte:                    and/or the packager must be established in the
         ( 1 ) Consumers' Association; (2 ) Which (?) Ltd               Community ?
                          ( Case C-82/96 )
                            ( 96/C 145/05 )                             (') OJ No L 33 , 8 . 2 . 1979 , p . 1 .
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the High Court of
Justice, Queen's Bench Division, of 28 February 1 996 ,
which was received at the Court Registry on 15 March
1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of The Queen                Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerisches
against Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, ex parte:            Landessozialgericht by order of that court of 2 February
                                                                        1996 in the case of Maria Martinez Sala v. Freistaat
( 1 ) Consumers' Association; ( 2 ) Which (?) Ltd, on the
following questions :                                                                                Bayern
                                                                                ( Case C-85 /96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 145/07 )
Does Article 7 ( 2 ) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April
1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (^ impose
obligations on Member States to ensure that national                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
law :                                                                   European Communities by an order of the Ninth Senate of


title: Case T-724/15: Action brought on 4 December 2015 — Verband der Bayerischen Privaten Milchwirtschaft v Commission

text:
               22.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 68/33

         Action brought on 4 December 2015 — Verband der Bayerischen Privaten Milchwirtschaft v Commission
   (Case T-724/15)
   (2016/C 068/42)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Verband der Bayerischen Privaten Milchwirtschaft e. V. (Munich, Germany) (represented by: C. Bittner and N. Thies, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should

               —

               annul the contested decision in so far as it

                           —

                           found in Article 1 that, in Germany, with regard to the milk quality tests carried out in Bavaria, State aid had been granted in favour of the undertakings in the dairy industry concerned, in infringement of Article 108(3) TFEU, and that that aid had been incompatible with the internal market since 1 January 2007;

                           —

                           ordered, in Articles 2 to 4, the recovery of that aid together with interest from the recipients;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the present action the applicant requests the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2015) 6295 final of 18 September 2015 on State aid No SA.35484 (2013/C) (ex SA.35484 (2012/NN)) granted by Germany for milk quality tests within the framework of the Milk and Fat Law.
   In support of the action the applicant puts forward six pleas in law, which are, in essence, identical or similar to the pleas in law put forward in Case T-722/15 Interessengemeinschaft privater Milchverarbeiter Bayerns v Commission.


title: Case F-32/08: Action brought on 3 March 2008 — Klein v Commission

text:
               9.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 116/36

         Action brought on 3 March 2008 — Klein v Commission
   (Case F-32/08)
   (2008/C 116/70)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Marie-Claude Klein (Grasse, France) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   The subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   Annulment of the decision of the appointing authority of 4 May 2007 refusing to recognise the applicant as the beneficiary of a death grant, death allowance and an orphan pension.
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision adopted by the Director of the Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements of the European Commission of 4 May 2007;

               —

               annul as necessary the decision of the appointing authority rejecting the applicant's complaint;

               —

               state to the appointing authority the consequences of the annulment of the contested decisions and, in particular, reconsider the applicant's right to death allowance, a death grant and an orphan pension (calculated on the basis of the pension for a first orphan);

               —

               order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.


title: Case T-41/10: Action brought on 2 February 2010 — SIMS — Ecole de ski internationale v OHIM — SNMSF (esf école du ski français)

text:
               17.4.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 100/50

         Action brought on 2 February 2010 — SIMS — Ecole de ski internationale v OHIM — SNMSF (esf école du ski français)
   (Case T-41/10)
   2010/C 100/76
   Language in which the application was lodged: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Syndicat international des moniteurs de ski — Ecole de ski internationale (SIMS — Ecole de ski internationale) (Albertville, France) (represented by: L. Raison-Rebufat, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Syndicat national des moniteurs du ski français (SNMSF) (Meylan, France)

      Form of order sought

               —

               vary and annul in its entirety Decision R 235/2009-1 of 11 November 2009 of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM concerning the action for annulment brought by the applicant against Decision 2557 C of the Cancellation Division of OHIM to reject its application for a declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark No 4 624 987 on the ground of an infringement of the provisions of Article 7(1) (h) and (g) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009;

               —

               declare that the trade mark No 4 624 987 is invalid on the dual ground of:

                           —

                           infringement of Article 6b(1)(a) and (c) of the Paris Convention to which Article 7(h) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark expressly refers;

                           —

                           infringement of Article 52 of the Regulation referring to Article 7(1)(g) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark;

               —

               declare the revocation of mark No 4 624 987 on the ground of the infringement of Article 51(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 of the Council of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Figurative mark ‘esf école du ski français’ for goods and services in Classes 25, 28 and 41 (Community trade mark No 4 624 987).

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Syndicat national des moniteurs du ski français.

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity: Syndicat international des moniteurs de ski — Ecole de ski internationale (SIMS — Ecole de ski internationale)

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Dismiss the application for a declaration of invalidity.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismiss the appeal of the applicant

      Pleas in law: infringement of Article 7(1)(h) and (g) and Article 51(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 October 2002 in Case C-190/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di pace de Genova-Voltri): Viacom Outdoor Srl v Giotto Immobilier SARL (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Inadmissibility)

text:
C 305/8                     EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                          7.12.2002
                        ORDER OF THE COURT                                                           ORDER OF THE COURT
                              (First Chamber)
                                                                                (First Chamber)
                           of 14 October 2002
                                                                                of 8 October 2002
in Case C-158/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Circuit Court, County of Cork): Catherine Withers v
                                                                                in Case C-190/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
Samantha Delaney, Motor Insurers Bureau of Ireland
                                                                                the Giudice di pace de Genova-Voltri): Viacom Outdoor
                                  (MIBI) (1)
                                                                                Srl v Giotto Immobilier SARL ( 1)
(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Answer
which may be clearly deduced from existing case-law —                                 (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Inadmissibility)
Approximation of laws — Directives 72/166/EEC and 84/
5/EEC — Compulsory insurance against civil liability in                                                    (2002/C 305/12)
    respect of motor vehicles — Injury caused to passengers)
                              (2002/C 305/11)                                                        (Language of the case: Italian)
                       (Language of the case: English)                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                       in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                In Case C-190/02: Reference to the Court, under Article 234
In Case C-158/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
                                                                                EC, by the Giudice di Pace of Genoa-Voltri (Italy) for a
by the Circuit Court, County of Cork (Ireland), for a preliminary
                                                                                preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
                                                                                court between Viacom Outdoor Srl and Giotto Immobilier
Catherine Withers and Samantha Delaney, Motor Insurers
                                                                                SARL, on the interpretation of Articles 2 EC; 3(1)(a), (b) and
Bureau of Ireland (MIBI), on the interpretation of Council Direc-
                                                                                (c) EC; 23 EC; 27(a), (b) and (d) EC; 31(1) and (3) EC; 49 EC;
tive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the
                                                                                50 EC; 81 EC; 82 EC; 86 EC and 87 EC, the Court
laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil
                                                                                (First Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the
liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the
                                                                                Chamber, P. Jann and A. Rosas (Rapporteur), Judges; S. Alber,
enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability
                                                                                Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on
(OJ, English Special Edition 1972 (II), p. 360), and of Second
                                                                                8 October 2002, the operative part of which is as follows:
Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the
approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to
insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor                 The reference for a preliminary ruling submitted by the Giudice di
vehicles (OJ 1984 L 8, p. 17), the Court (First Chamber), compo-                 Pace of Genoa-Voltri by order of 9 April 2002 is inadmissible.
sed of: M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber, P. Jann(Rapporte-
ur) and A. Rosas, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass,
Registrar, having informed the court of referral that the Court                  (1 ) OJ C 169 of 13.7.2002.
proposed to give its decision by reasoned order in accordance
with Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure, having invited the
persons referred to in Article 20 of the EC Statute of the Court
of Justice to submit any observations which they might wish to
make in that regard, has made an order on 14 October 2002,
the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster
Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approxi-                    Gerichtshof (Republic of Austria) by order of that Court
mation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against            of 11 July 2002 in the matter of the care of the minor Nils
civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforce-                                 Laurin Effing
ment of the obligation to insure against such liability, and Second
Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approxi-
                                                                                (Case C-302/02)
mation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against
civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles are to be interpreted
as meaning that theydo not precludea Member Statefrom maintaining                                          (2002/C 305/13)
national legislation which does not require compulsory insurance
against civil liability arising from the use of motor vehicles to cover
personal injuries to passengers carried in a part of the vehicle other than
a large public service vehicle, unless that part of the vehicle was designed     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
and constructed with seating accommodation for passengers.                       European Communities by order of the Oberster Gerichtshof
                                                                                (Republic of Austria) (Supreme Court of Justice) of 11 July
                                                                                2002, received at the Court Registry on 26 August 2002, for
( 1) OJ C 186 of 30.6.2001.
                                                                                a preliminary ruling in the matter of the care of the minor Nils
                                                                                Laurin Effing on the following question:


title: Case T-419/15: Judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2017 — Cofely Solelec and Others v Parliament (Public works contracts — Procurement procedure — Extension and renovation of the Konrad Adenauer building in Luxembourg — Annulment of the procurement procedure — Obligation to state reasons — Market value — Manifest error of assessment)

text:
               27.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/26

         Judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2017 — Cofely Solelec and Others v Parliament
   (Case T-419/15) (1)

   ((Public works contracts - Procurement procedure - Extension and renovation of the Konrad Adenauer building in Luxembourg - Annulment of the procurement procedure - Obligation to state reasons - Market value - Manifest error of assessment))
   (2017/C 063/35)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Cofely Solelec (Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg), Mannelli & Associés SA (Bertrange, Luxembourg), Cofely Fabricom (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Marx, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: L. Chrétien and M. Mraz, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of the decisions contained in the letters with references D(2015)24297 and D(2015).28116 from the European Parliament’s Directorate-General for Infrastructure and Logistics, respectively of 29 May and 11 June 2015, notifying the applicants of the annulment of the procurement procedure INLO-D-UPIL-T-14-A04 for the award of Lot No 75, entitled ‘electricity — power’ for the project to extend and modernise the Konrad Adenauer building in Luxembourg (Luxembourg).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders Cofely Solelec, Mannelli & Associés SA and Cofely Fabricom to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 337, 12.10.2015.