title: Case T-550/08: Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2014  — Tudapetrol Mineralölerzeugnisse Nils Hansen v Commission (Competition — Agreements — Paraffin waxes market — Coordination and price increases — Price fixing — 2006 Guidelines for calculating the amount of fines — Rights of the defence — Proof of the infringement — Limitation)

text:
               9.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/38

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2014 — Tudapetrol Mineralölerzeugnisse Nils Hansen v Commission
   (Case T-550/08) (1)

   ((Competition - Agreements - Paraffin waxes market - Coordination and price increases - Price fixing - 2006 Guidelines for calculating the amount of fines - Rights of the defence - Proof of the infringement - Limitation))
   (2015/C 046/45)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Tudapetrol Mineralölerzeugnisse Nils Hansen KG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: U. Itzen, J. Ziebarth, lawyers, and S. Thomas, professor)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Antoniadis and R. Sauer, Agents)

      Re:

   Principally, an application for annulment of Commission Decision C (2008) 5476 final of 1 October 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.181 — Candle Waxes), in that it concerns the applicant, and, in the alternative, an application for reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Tudapetrol Mineralölerzeugnisse Nils Hansen KG to bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission, including those incurred in the proceedings for interim measures.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 7.3.2009.


title: Case F-69/14: Action brought on 19 July 2014  — ZZ v European Securities and Markets Authority

text:
               27.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 380/27

         Action brought on 19 July 2014 — ZZ v European Securities and Markets Authority
   (Case F-69/14)
   2014/C 380/35
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Securities and Markets Authority

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   The annulment of the appraisal report drawn up in respect of 2013.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the challenged appraisal report;

               —

               order the European Securities and Markets Authority to pay the costs.


title: Case C-3/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 4 January 2016 — Lucio Cesare Aquino v Belgische Staat

text:
               18.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 136/7

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 4 January 2016 — Lucio Cesare Aquino v Belgische Staat
   (Case C-3/16)
   (2016/C 136/12)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hof van beroep te Brussel

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Lucio Cesare Aquino

      Respondent: Belgische Staat

      Questions referred

               1.

               In the light of the application of the case-law developed by the Court of Justice in the Köbler case (judgment of 30 September 2003, Case C-224/01) (1), and the Traghetti del Mediterraneo case (judgment of 13 June 2006, Case C-173/03) (2) on State liability for wrongdoing by courts which constitutes a breach of EU law, should a court whose decision in the context of an appeal in cassation is not assessed because, by application of a national procedural rule, the complainant, who made a submission in the cassation proceedings, is irrefutably deemed to have withdrawn from proceedings, be regarded as a court of last instance?

               2.

               Is it compatible with the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU, partly in the light of the second paragraph of Article 47 and Article 52(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (3), read together, that a national court, which under that Treaty provision is obliged to make requests for preliminary rulings to the Court of Justice, rejects a request for such a ruling on the sole ground that the request is formulated in a pleading which, according to the applicable procedural law, should not be taken into account because it was filed late?

               3.

               In a case where the highest of the ordinary courts does not examine a request for a preliminary ruling, should it be assumed that a breach of the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU has been committed, partly in the light of the second paragraph of Article 47 and Article 52(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, read together, when that court rejects the request, with the only reason given being that ‘[s]ince the grounds of appeal were not admissible for a reason specific to the proceedings before the Hof’, the question would not be asked?

      (1)  EU:C:2003:513.

      (2)  EU:C:2006:391.

      (3)  OJ 2000 C 364, p. 1.


title: Case F-127/10: Action brought on 15 December 2010 — Bömcke v EIB

text:
               5.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/36

         Action brought on 15 December 2010 — Bömcke v EIB
   (Case F-127/10)
   2011/C 72/58
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Eberhard Bömcke (Athus, Belgium) (represented by: D. Lagasse, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Investment Bank

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the election of the EIB staff representative declared by the BEI polling station on 8 December 2010.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the election of the representative of all EIB staff declared by the EIB polling station on 8 December 2010 and the decision of 10 December 2010 of the EIB polling station rejecting the complaint made by the applicant on 9 December 2010 pursuant to Article 17 of Annex IV to the Convention on the Representation of the Staff of the EIB;

               —

               order the EIB to pay the costs.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 December 2002 in Case T-247/01: eCopy Inc v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — ECOPY — Misuse of powers — Distinctiveness acquired through use after the date of filing — Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
C 44/28                 EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                            22.2.2003
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               rall) — application for annulment of the Commission’s
                                                                           decision of 14 December 2000 removing the applicant from
                      of 12 December 2002                                  his post with no loss of pension rights — the Court of First
                                                                           Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of J. D. Cooke, President,
in Case T-247/01: eCopy Inc v Office for Harmonisation in                  and K. Lenaerts and P. Lindh, Judges; D. Christensen, Adminis-
the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)                   trator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 5 December
                                                                           2002, in which it:
(Community trade mark — ECOPY — Misuse of powers —
Distinctiveness acquired through use after the date of filing              1.     Dismissed the application;
         — Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
                                                                           2.     Ordered each of the parties to bear its own costs.
                           (2003/C 44/53)
                   (Language of the case: English)                         (1 ) OJ C 3 of 5.1.2002.
In Case T-247/01, eCopy Inc, established in Nashua, New
Hampshire (United States), represented by B. Reid, Barrister, v
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
and Designs) (OHIM) (Agent: E. Joly): Action brought against
the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Designs) of 13 July 2001 (Case R 47/2001-1) relating to
registration of the word ECOPY as a Community trade mark,
the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of:                                        of 28 November 2002
M. Vilaras, President, V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges; J. Pling-
ers, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                           in Case T-332/01: José Maria Pujals Gomis v Commission
12 December 2002, in which it:
                                                                                of the European Communities ( 1)
1.     Dismisses the application;
                                                                           (Officials — Open competition — Application rejected after
2.     Orders the applicant to pay the costs.                                                          written tests)
( 1) OJ C 17 of 19.1.2002.                                                                            (2003/C 44/55)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                           In Case T-332/01: José Maria Pujals Gomis, residing in
                       of 5 December 2002                                  Barcelona, Spain, represented by J. Pujals Gomis, Lawyer,
                                                                           against Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
                                                                           L. Lozano Palacios, F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, J. Rivas-Andres
in Case T-277/01: Romuald Stevens v Commission of the                      and J. Gutiérrez Gisbert) — application for annulment of the
                   European Communities ( 1)                               jury’s decision of 28 September 2001 in open competition
                                                                           COM/B/1/01 rejecting the applicant’s application in the com-
(Officials — Disciplinary proceedings — Criminal convic-                   petition and refusing to correct his written papers — the Court
tion — Removal from post with no loss of pension rights —                  of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of M. Jaeger,
Hearing provided for by the third paragraph of Article 7 of                President, and K. Lenaerts and J. Azzizi, Judges; B. Pastor,
               Annex IX to the Staff Regulations)                          Assistant Registrar, gave a judgment on 28 November 2002,
                                                                           in which it:
                           (2003/C 44/54)
                                                                           1.     Dismissed the application;
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           2.     Ordered each of the parties to bear its own costs.
In Case T-277/01: Romuald Stevens, a former official of the
Commission of the European Communities, residing in                        (1 ) OJ C 44 of 16.2.2002.
Bertem, Belgium, represented by J.-N. Louis and V. Peere,
Lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against
Commission of the European Communities (Agent: M. J. Cur-


title: Case C-511/04: Action brought on 14 December 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic

text:
               19.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/17

         Action brought on 14 December 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-511/04)
   (2005/C 45/32)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 14 December 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by R. Vidal Puig, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions needed to implement Commission Directive 2000/56/EC (1) of 14 September 2000, which amends Council Directive 91/439/EEC on driving licences, and in any event by failing to give notice thereof to the Commission, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for transposition of Directive 2000/56/EC expired on 30 September 2003.

      (1)  OJ L 237 of 21.9.2000, p. 45.


title: Case T-331/08: Action brought on 11 August 2008 — REWE-Zentral v OHIM — Grupo Corporativo Teype (Solfrutta)

text:
               11.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/16

         Action brought on 11 August 2008 — REWE-Zentral v OHIM — Grupo Corporativo Teype (Solfrutta)
   (Case T-331/08)
   (2008/C 260/30)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: REWE-Zentral AG (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: A. Bognár and M. Kinkeldey, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Grupo Corporativo Teype, SL (Madrid, Spain)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 21 May 2008 in case R 1679/2007-2; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘Solfrutta’ for goods in classes 29, 30 and 32

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited: Community trade mark registration No 1 687 722 of the word mark ‘FRUTISOL’ for goods in class 32; Spanish trade mark registration No 2 018 327 of the word mark ‘FRUTISOL’ for goods in class 32

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition partially

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal erred in not taking into account the alleged weak distinctiveness of the earlier trade marks. Likewise, when assessing only the similarity of the single elements of the trade marks concerned, the Board of Appeal did not sufficiently take into account that the most relevant aspect in the framework of such assessment is the overall impression conveyed by the trade marks concerned.


title: Case C-268/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg of the Antwerp judicial district by judgment of that Court of 13 June 2003 in the case of Jean-Claude De Baeck against Belgian State, Ministry of Finance

text:
C 289/12               EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                      29.11.2003
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Rechtbank van                      ‘Split transport’ is to be understood as meaning:
Eerste Aanleg of the Antwerp judicial district by judgment
of that Court of 13 June 2003 in the case of Jean-Claude                     The carriage of persons to or from the territory covered
    De Baeck against Belgian State, Ministry of Finance                      by the embargo by means of a joint operation between
                                                                             an undertaking established in a Member State of the
                                                                             Community and an undertaking established in the terri-
                         (Case C-268/03)                                     tory covered by the embargo, the former providing
                                                                             carriage to the vicinity of the border of the territory
                        (2003/C 289/22)                                      covered by the embargo and the latter carriage from there
                                                                             into the territory covered by the embargo (the passengers
                                                                             changing vehicle).
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  2.   If the Court of Justice finds that split transport was
European Communities by judgment of the Rechtbank van                        permissible: Was there an obligation under Article 10 or
Eerste Aanleg (First-instance court) of the Antwerp judicial                 Article 297 EC or other provisions of Community law to
district of 13 June 2003, received at the Court Registry on                  consult other Member States and/or the Commission
19 June 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Jean-                  before taking national measures based on the unlaw-
Claude De Baeck against Belgian State, Ministry of Finance on                fulness of split transport?
the following question:
                                                                        (1) OJ L 151, p. 4.
Do Articles 43, 46, 48, 56 and 58 EC preclude Belgian
legislation, namely Articles 67(8) and 67ter of the WIB64,
pursuant to which the surplus values realised on the occasion
of the transfer for valuable consideration, otherwise than in
the context of the exercise of a business activity, of shares, or
other proof of entitlement to holdings, in Belgian companies,
associations, establishments or institutions are liable to tax
where the transfer is to a foreign company, association,
establishment or institution, even though in the same circum-           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Gerechtshof te
stances those surplus values are not liable to tax where the            ’s-Hertogenbosch by judgment of that Court of 24 July
transfer is to a Belgian company, association, establishment or         2003 in the case of D against head of the Private
institution?                                                              Individuals/Enterprises/Foreign Countries/Heerlen unit
                                                                                (Case C-376/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 289/24)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesge-
richt Köln by order of that Court of 21 August 2003
in the proceedings between Aulinger and The Federal                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                     Republic of Germany                                European Communities by judgment of the Gerechtshof te ’s-
                                                                        Hertogenbosch (Regional Court of Appeal, ’s-Hertogenbosch)
                                                                        of 24 July 2003, received at the Court Registry on 8 September
                         (Case C-371/03)                                2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of D against head of
                                                                        the Private Individuals/Enterprises/Foreign Countries/Heerlen
                        (2003/C 289/23)                                 unit on the following questions:
                                                                        1.   Does Community law, and in particular Article 56 EC et
                                                                             seq., preclude legislation such as that referred to in the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       main proceedings, under which a domestic taxpayer is
European Communities by order of the Oberlandesgericht                       always entitled to deduction of a tax allowance in respect
Köln (Higher Regional Court, Cologne) of 21 August 2003,                     of wealth tax, whereas a foreign taxpayer has no such
received at the Court Registry on 1st September 2003, for a                  entitlement in the case where the assets in question are
preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Aulinger and                   situated predominantly in the taxpayer’s State of residence
The Federal Republic of Germany on the following questions:                  (in which no wealth tax is levied)?
1.    Was Article 1(d) of Council Regulation No 1432/92 (1) of          2.   If not, does it make a difference in this case that the
      1 June 1992 (the so-called ‘Embargo Regulation’) to be                 Netherlands has, under a bilateral treaty, granted to
      interpreted as meaning that the commercial carriage of                 residents of Belgium, who in all other respects are
      persons to or from the territory covered by the embargo                in comparable circumstances, entitlement to the tax
      involving so-called ‘split’ transport was permitted or                 allowance (where no wealth tax is levied in Belgium
      prohibited?                                                            either)?


title: Action brought on 21 October 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against Kingdom of Belgium (Case C-378/98)

text:
C 378/14            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                         5.12.98
   biotechnological inventions in order to achieve, in the                   the human body patentable. Such treatment of
   framework of the common market, one of the                                living human material as an object is unacceptable
   objectives of the Community Ð Article 235. A                              in the context of human dignity.
   procedure in which a qualified majority is sufficient
   was thus wrongly chosen for the adoption of Directive                Ð Violation of patients' right to self-determination:
   98/44/EC, when a procedure for which a unanimous                          Not the slightest provision is made as regards
   vote is prescribed was appropriate.                                       possible recipients of biotechnologically treated
                                                                             material, or at least material which has been
                                                                             obtained through the application of biotechnology.
Ð Infringement of the second paragraph of Article 3(b)                       This means that a patient may be treated with
   of the EC Treaty (the principle of subsidiarity) or,                      such material without his knowledge Ð and thus
   in the alternative, of the combined provisions of                         without his consent Ð even where, had he been
   Articles 3(b) and 190 of the EC Treaty: The patent                        made aware of it, he would have refused such
   laws of the Member States are almost completely                           treatment.
   harmonised following alignment with the European
   Patent Convention. The clarification of the protection
   of biotechnological inventions which is, according to           Ð Infringement of Article 100(a) taken together with
                                                                        Article 189b(2), of the EC Treaty: The activities of
   recital 4 in its preamble, the aim of Directive 98/44/
   EC should therefore ensue from the implementation of                 the Commission are governed by the principle of
   the European Patent Convention. It is thus an aim                    collegiality. The Commission's proposal, which was an
   eminently suitable for being achieved by the Member                  indispensable prerequisite for the contested Directive,
   States. Indeed, such an approach is preferable in view               should have been drawn up by the college of
                                                                        commissioners in the definitive text in which it was
   of the fact that the European Patent Convention
   applies also in States other than the Member States of               submitted to the European Parliament and the
   the European Union. Nor, thus, is it established that                Council, because it is an essential part of the
                                                                        Community legislative process. In view of the general
   this matter concerns a Community objective which, by
   reason of the scale or effects of the abovementioned                 scope of the measure adopted by the European
   action, can be better achieved by the Community, or                  Parliament and the Council on the basis of that
   in any event it is not clear from the statement of                   proposal, the text should also have been available for
   reasons for the contested measure that this is so.                   consideration by all the members of the college in all
                                                                        the official languages at the time when the
                                                                        Commission took its decision.
Ð Breach of the principle of legal certainty: The
   Netherlands Government takes the view that it is                (1) Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the
   only to a limited extent that Directive 98/44/EC                    Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of
   removes any uncertainty regarding the patenting of                  biotechnological inventions (OJ L 213, 30.7.1998, p. 13).
   biotechnological inventions, whereas it gives rise at the
   same time to new uncertainties.
Ð Breach of obligations under international law:
                                                                     Action brought on 21 October 1998 by the Commission
   Ð Notwithstanding Article 1(2) of Directive 98/44/                    of the European Communities against Kingdom of
       EC, Member States are denied the opportunity of                                          Belgium
       choosing whether or not to make use of the                                          (Case C-378/98)
       possibility of an exclusion under Article 27(3)(b)
       fo the TRIPS Agreement.                                                               (98/C 378/24)
   Ð Directive 98/44/EC was not drawn up in                        An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
       accordance with the provisions of Article 2 of the          before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
       Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade, or in             on 21 October 1998 by the Commission of the European
       any event it is not apparent from the statement of          Communities, represented by GeÂrard Rozet, Legal Adviser,
       reasons for the Directive that this was so.                 acting as Agent, with an address for service in
                                                                   Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
   Ð Infringement of the European Patent Convention.               Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
   Ð Infringement of the Convention on Biological                  The Commission of the European Communities claims
       Diversity.                                                  that the Court should:
                                                                   Ð declare that, by failing to adopt within the period
Ð Breach of fundamental rights:                                         prescribed the measures necessary to recover from the
                                                                        beneficiary undertakings the aid provided for under
   Ð Violation of human dignity: The human body is                      Maribel II/III scheme which was declared unlawful
       the bearer of human dignity. Under Directive 98/                 and incompatible with the common market by the
       44/EC, it will be possible to make isolated parts of             Commission's Decision of 4 December 1996, notified
 ---pagebreak--- 5.12.98              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 378/15
     to it on 20 December 1996, the Kingdom of Belgium               The applicant claims that the Court should:
     has failed to fulfil its obligations under the fourth
     paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty and                   1. Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
     Articles 2 and 3 of the said decision; and                          within the prescribed period the laws, regulations or
                                                                         administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Ð order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.                         Council Directive of 22 June 1994 on the protection
                                                                         of young persons at work (1), and/or by failing to
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      inform the Commission thereof, the Italian Republic
                                                                         has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty;
The action for annulment of the Commission's Decision of                 and
4 December 1996 (1) does not have a suspensive effect.
The only argument on which a Member State may rely in                2. Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
order not to comply with a decision ordering recovery of
aid unlawfully paid is that it is absolutely impossible for          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
the decision to be complied with correctly.
                                                                     Under Article 189 of the EC Treaty, according to which a
The Commission maintains, first, that, the Kingdom of                directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved,
Belgium has not truly complied with its duty to cooperate            upon each Member State to which it is addressed,
in good faith. Even although it had established contacts             Member States are required to observe the time-limits laid
with the Commission in order to explain the possible                 down in directives for their transposition. That time-limit
problems caused by the recovery of the aid unlawfully                expired on 22 June 1996 without the Italian Republic
paid out and to outline a proposal for staggered                     having brought into force the necessary provisions in
repayment, and even although the Commission had not                  order to comply with the directive referred to in the
objected to that proposal, the Kingdom of Belgium                    Commission's application.
suddenly took the step of abandoning the framework of
                                                                     (1) OJ L 216, 20.8.1994, p. 12.
cooperation with the Commission in good faith and of
arguing before the Court that it was absolutely impossible
for the decision to be complied with.
Second, the Commission maintains that the Kingdom of
Belgium has not made the slightest approach to the                          Removal from the register of Case C-51/98 (1)
undertakings in issue with a view to recovering the aid.
Third, it maintains that the Kingdom of Belgium has not                                       (98/C 378/26)
proposed any alternative means of implementing the
decision whereby the difficulties encountered could have             By order of 8 September 1998 the President of the Court
been resolved.                                                       of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
                                                                     removal from the register of Case C-51/98 (reference for a
(1) Case C-75/97 (OJ C 131, 26.4.1997, p. 5).                        preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Wiesbaden):
                                                                     Urlaubs- und Lohnausgleichskasse der Bauwirtschaft v.
                                                                     Works in The World Srl.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 137, 2.5.1998.
Action brought on 26 October 1998 by the Commission
 of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                       (Case C-385/98)
                        (98/C 378/25)                                      Removal from the register of Case C-255/98 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 378/27)
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                  By order of 12 October 1998 the President of the Court of
26 October 1998 by the Commission of the European                    Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Communities, represented by Pieter Jan Kuijper and                   removal from the register of Case C-255/98: Kingdom of
Antonio Aresu, Legal Advisers acting as Agents, with an              Spain v. Commission of the European Communities.
address for service in Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos
Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                          (1) OJ C 278, 5.9.1998.


title: Case C-19/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Duisburg (Germany) lodged on 16 January 2014 — Ana-Maria Talasca, Angelina Marita Talasca v Stadt Kevelaer

text:
               12.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/9

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Duisburg (Germany) lodged on 16 January 2014 — Ana-Maria Talasca, Angelina Marita Talasca v Stadt Kevelaer
   (Case C-19/14)
   2014/C 142/10
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Sozialgericht Duisburg (Germany)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Ana-Maria Talasca, Angelina Marita Talasca

      Defendant: Stadt Kevelaer

      Questions referred

               (a)

               Is the second sentence of Paragraph 7(1) of Book II of the Sozialgesetzbuch (SGB) compatible with European Community law?

               (b)

               If not, must the legal situation be altered by the Federal Republic of Germany, or does a different legal situation arise immediately, and if so, which?

               (c)

               Does the second sentence of Paragraph 7(1) of Book II of the SGB remain in force until a (possibly) necessary change to the law by the institutions of the Federal Republic of Germany?


title: Case T-168/14: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2015 — Pérez Gutiérrez v Commission (Non-contractual liability — Public health — Directive 2011/37/EC — Manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products — Colour photographs proposed by the Commission as health warnings to appear on tobacco packages — Decision 2003/641/EC — Unauthorised use of the image of a deceased person — Harm suffered personally by the widow of the deceased person)

text:
               19.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/25

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2015 — Pérez Gutiérrez v Commission
   (Case T-168/14) (1)

   ((Non-contractual liability - Public health - Directive 2011/37/EC - Manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products - Colour photographs proposed by the Commission as health warnings to appear on tobacco packages - Decision 2003/641/EC - Unauthorised use of the image of a deceased person - Harm suffered personally by the widow of the deceased person))
   (2015/C 346/29)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Ana Pérez Gutiérrez (Mataró, Spain) (represented by: J. Soler Puebla, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz and C. Cattabriga, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for damages seeking, firstly, compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a consequence of the unauthorised use of her late husband’s picture among the photographs proposed by the Commission for the health warnings to be shown on tobacco packages pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 5(3) of Directive 2001/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2001 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products (OJ 2001 L 194, p. 26) and Commission Decision 2003/641/EC of 5 September 2003 on the use of colour photographs or other illustrations as health warnings on tobacco packages (OJ 2003 L 226, p. 24) and, secondly, the withdrawal of her late husband’s picture and a prohibition on its use within the European Union.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Ms Ana Pérez Gutiérrez to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 135, 5.5.2014.


title: Case C-62/07: Order of the President of the Eighth Chamber of the Court of 20 February 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

text:
               24.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 128/27

         Order of the President of the Eighth Chamber of the Court of 20 February 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-62/07) (1)

   (2008/C 128/51)

      Language of the case: Italian

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

      (1)  OJ C 69, 24.3.2007.


               8.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/15

         Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Borgarting lagmannsrett in the Case of Olga Rindal v the Norwegian State represented by the Board of Exemptions and Appeals for Treatment Abroad
   (Case E-11/07)
   (2008/C 113/12)
   A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter of 14 December 2007 from Borgarting lagmannsrett (Borgarting Court of Appeal), which was received at the Court Registry on 19 December 2007, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Olga Rindal v the Norwegian State represented by the Board of Exemptions and Appeals for Treatment Abroad, on the following questions:

               1.

               Is it compatible with Articles 36 and 37 of the EEA Agreement and Article 22 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 to refuse coverage of expenses for treatment abroad which according to international medicine must be considered experimental or test treatment, when there is no entitlement to such treatment in the home State?

               2.

               Is it of significance for the answer to Question No 1 that the method of treatment itself is internationally recognised and documented, but where this only applies to other medical indications than those which the patient in question has?

               3.

               Is it compatible with Articles 36 and 37 of the EEA Agreement to refuse coverage of expenses for hospital treatment abroad if the patient in the home State can receive an offer of adequate medical treatment assessed according to accepted international methods within a medically justifiable time limit?
               Is it of significance for the answer to Question No 3 whether coverage of such expenses may be refused even if the treatment abroad is considered as possibly more advanced than the treatment in the home State?

               4.

               Is it of significance for the answers to the questions above whether:

                           (a)

                           the home State as a matter of fact does not offer the treatment received abroad?

                           (b)

                           the patient as a matter of fact has not been offered the treatment in question in the home State even if the treatment is offered there?

                           (c)

                           the patient has been assessed in the home State, but has not been given the offer of further surgical treatment because the patient is not considered to get documented benefit from the treatment?

                           (d)

                           the treatment given abroad actually resulted in an improvement of the specific patient's state of health?


title: Case C-125/03: Action brought on 20 March 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany

text:
C 112/20               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                        10.5.2003
Action brought on 20 March 2003 by the Commission of                       Action brought on 21 March 2003 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Federal Republic                        the European Communities against Trendsoft (Irl) Ltd
                             of Germany
                          (Case C-125/03)                                                          (Case C-127/03)
                          (2003/C 112/34)                                                          (2003/C 112/35)
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 20 March 2003 by the Commission of the European                    An action against Trendsoft (Irl) Ltd was brought before the
Communities, represented by Klaus Wiedner, of its Legal                    Court of Justice of the European Communities on 21 March
Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                        2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                           represented by L. Flynn and C. Giolito, acting as agents, with
                                                                           an address for service in Luxembourg.
The Commission claims that the Court should:
—     declare that, in so far as the refuse disposal contracts
      concluded by the town councils of Lüdinghausen and                   The Applicant claims that the Court should:
      Olfen and the district councils of Nordkirchen, Senden
      and Ascheberg were awarded without complying with                    —     condemn the defendant to pay the applicant the sum of
      the requirements concerning contract notices laid down                     24 751,57 Euros (twenty four thousand seven hundred
      in Article 8 in conjunction with Articles 15(2) and 16(1)                  and fifty one Euros and fifty seven cents), corresponding
      of Directive 92/50, ( 1) the Federal Republic of Germany                   to 21 303,00 Euros as the amount due and
      has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive, and             3 448,57 Euros as late payment interest as of 31 March
                                                                                2003, at a rate of 6,09 % until 31 December 2002 and a
—     order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.                    rate of 8,09 % thereafter;
                                                                           —     condemn the defendant to pay 4,72 Euros (four Euros
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                  and seventy two cents) per day by way of interest from
                                                                                1 April 2003 until the date on which the debt is repaid
                                                                                in full;
Although it has admitted the infringements complained of and
asserts its intention in future to invite tenders for refuse
disposal services in a manner consistent with Community law                —     condemn the defendant to pay the costs of the present
on the award of contracts, the defendant has taken no steps                      action.
to terminate the existing contracts which still have until
31 December 2003 to run.
The defendant does not even contend that termination of the                Pleas in law and main arguments
contracts is impossible under German law. It merely points
out that premature termination of the contracts could give rise
to claims for damages. On the contrary, it is conducive to the
effectiveness of Community law on the award of contracts if                In accordance with Article 16(3) of the financial Annex to the
contracting authorities can expect, if necessary, to have to               contract, the defendant undertook, in the event that the total
make payments of damages.                                                  financial contribution due for the project was less than the
                                                                           payments made for the project, to immediately reimburse the
                                                                           difference to the Commission.
Moreover, the obligation to remedy infringements of Com-
munity law on the award of contracts by also terminating
contracts already concluded cannot be called in question by
Article 2(6) of Directive 89/665, (2) which deals with the                 In its final consolidated cost statement of 23 September 1999
                                                                           the Commission indicated that it would not take certain
review of possible infringements of Community law on the
award of contracts. A Treaty infringement can be regarded as               claimed costs into account and explained why these were
                                                                           inadmissible. The defendant accepted the Commission’s pro-
ended only when the Member State has both acknowledged
                                                                           posed final consolidated cost statement by fax of 5 April 2000.
the unlawfulness of its conduct and completely remedied the
infringement.                                                              It does not dispute its obligation to reimburse the amounts
                                                                           unduly paid by the Commission but has failed to comply with
                                                                           that obligation and is, therefore, in breach of its obligation
( 1) OJ L 209 of 24.7.1992, p. 1.                                          arising under the contract.
( 2) OJ L 395 of 30.12.1989, p. 33.


title: Case T-50/00: Action brought on 8 March 2000 by Dalmine SpA against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
27.5.2000              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 149/35
The essence of the applicant’s pleas in law and main arguments            The contested regulation, it is claimed, entirely upset the
are similar to those in Cases T-186/97 (1), T-187/97, T-191/97,           existing situation. Its effect is to exclude from the scope of
T-192/97, T-210/97 and T-211/97.                                          code 2001 90 50 mushrooms preserved in vinegar which still
                                                                          have a salt content in excess of 2,5 % even if such salt is added
                                                                          only for the purposes of preparation and not preservation.
(1) OJ 1997 C 318, p. 17.                                                 Those products will henceforth be subjected to the severest
                                                                          tariff conditions laid down for code 2003 10 of the combined
                                                                          nomenclature.
                                                                          In support, the applicant claims:
                                                                          — The Commission lacks competence by virtue of Article 26
                                                                               of the EC Treaty;
Action brought on 8 March 2000 by I.P.O.S.E.A. di Giusto                  — Article 9 of Regulation No 2658/87, the legal basis of the
Masiello & Figli v Commission of the European Communi-                         contested regulation, has been infringed and misapplied,
                               ties                                            in that the powers of the Commission provided for therein,
                                                                               being of an executive nature, may not be used in order to
                                                                               amend provisions of a substantive nature which define the
                          (Case T-49/00)                                       tariff conditions for goods. Secondly, in this case the
                                                                               requirements for amending the pre-existing provisions are
                                                                               not satisfied;
                         (2000/C 149/67)
                                                                          — The principle of equal treatment has been infringed in that
                                                                               the new regulation is extremely onerous only for the
                                                                               producers and importers of mushrooms which are pre-
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                             served in vinegar but are prepared using a high salt content.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 The applicant also considers that the contested regulation
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance on 8 March            contains an inadequate and contradictory statement of reasons
2000 by I.P.O.S.E.A. di Giusto Masiello & Figli, represented              and infringes the principle of proportionality and the principle
by Andrea Guarino and Alain Lorang, of the Rome and                       of the protection of legitimate expectations.
Luxembourg Bars respectively.
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:             (1) OJ L 321 of 14.12.1999, p. 3.
                                                                          (2) OJ L 170 of 28.6.1997, p. 13.
— Annul Commission Regulation No 2626/99;
— Order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          Action brought on 8 March 2000 by Dalmine SpA against
                                                                                the Commission of the European Communities
The applicant in this case, an importer of preserved vegetables
for human consumption, takes exception to Commission
Regulation (EC) No 2626/99 amending Annex I to Council                                              (Case T-50/00)
Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical
nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff(1). One of
the main products in which it deals is cooked mushrooms of                                         (2000/C 149/68)
the ‘agaricus’ variety preserved in vinegar. Salt is then added to
them, in a concentration varying between 15 and 25 %.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
Under the combined nomenclature established by Regulation
No 2685/87, mushrooms of the ‘agaricus’ variety could be                  An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
classified under three headings. To resolve this problem,                 ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1196/97 of 27 June 1997                     European Communities on 8 March 2000 by Dalmine SpA,
concerning the classification of certain goods in the combined            represented by Mario Siragusa and Francesca Maria Moretti, of
nomenclature was adopted (2).                                             the Rome and Venice Bars.
 ---pagebreak--- C 149/36               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     27.5.2000
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             Action brought on 23 March 2000 by Mario Costacurta
                                                                          against the Commission of the European Communities
— annul in whole or in part the Commission’s decision of
     8 December 1998 in Case IV/E-1/35.860-B — seamless
     steel tubes                                                                                (Case T-51/00)
— in the alternative, annul or reduce the fine imposed on the                                     (2000/C 149/69)
     applicant;
— order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 23 March 2000 by Mario Costacur-
The applicant has been accused of participation in an agree-            ta, residing in Luxembourg, represented by Marc Petit, Avocat,
ment involving European and Japanese producers of seamless              Luxembourg.
steel tubes in connection with the so-called Europe-Japan Club,
an agreement providing, inter alia, for protection of national
markets in standard edged and ‘linepipe project’ OCTG (Oil
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
Country Tubular Goods) tubes. The applicant is further
accused, as part of the same infringement, of participating in a
further agreement between European producers only, con-                 — annul the decision impliedly rejecting the applicant’s
sisting in the sharing out of the supply of smooth OCTG tubes                complaint concerning his request for communication
to British Steel.                                                            of the document embodying the appointing authority’s
                                                                             decision appointing him with effect from 1 September
                                                                             1996 to the Planning, contracts and general services unit
In support of its claims, the applicant alleges the following
                                                                             of the Office for Official Publications of the European
defects:
                                                                             Communities in Luxembourg;
— Procedural infringement during the administrative phase,
     concerning, inter alia, the inadmissibility of certain ques-       — annul the decision of the appointing authority of the Office
     tions put to the applicant by the Commission during its                 for Official Publications of the European Communities of
     investigation, the handling of confidentiality and the                  15 May 1998 assigning the applicant to the Coedition and
     failure of certain documents annexed to the Statement of                copyright unit in Luxembourg on the grounds that it is
     Objections to correspond with the documents used in the                 based on an act which either does not exist or is not in
     decision.                                                               conformity with the Staff Regulations;
— Infringement of Article 81 of the Treaty and of the                   — order the Commission of the European Communities to
     legitimate expectations of the applicant in relation to the             pay all costs and fees incurred in the proceedings;
     inclusion in the contested decision of descriptions of fact
     not contained in the objections sent to the undertakings.
                                                                        — note that the applicant reserves his rights in respect of all
— Failure to act, contradictoriness in reasoning, and infringe-              other rights, entitlements, pleadings and actions, including
     ment of Article 81 of the Treaty in relation to the market              those relating to damages.
     analysis and the commercial conduct of Dalmine, the
     alleged unlawfulness of the supply contracts for the United
     Kingdom and the restrictive nature of the agreement in the
     context of the Europe-Japan Club.                                  Pleas in law and main arguments
Specifically concerning the supply contracts for the United
                                                                        The applicant contests the Commission’s decision rejecting the
Kingdom, the applicant states that its contract with British
                                                                        request which he submitted on 20 July 1999 for communi-
Steel, which was not the result of an agreement between
                                                                        cation of the official decision reassigning him with effect from
European producers, largely concerns products which do not
                                                                        1 September 1996 to the Official Publications Office in
fall within the relevant market as defined by the Commission.
                                                                        Luxembourg.
Moreover, the applicant did not participate in any horizontal
agreement with other European producers for the sharing out
of supply in the United Kingdom.
                                                                        In support of his action he maintains that that decision:
                                                                        — infringes Articles 2, 3 and 25 of the Staff Regulations;


title: Case F-120/13: Action brought on 12 December 2013 — ZZ v ERA

text:
               15.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/47

         Action brought on 12 December 2013 — ZZ v ERA
   (Case F-120/13)
   2014/C 45/88
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Railway Agency (ERA)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision not to renew the temporary staff contract of the applicant.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision not to renew the temporary staff contract of the applicant within the Agency;

               —

               Order the Agency to pay the costs.


title: Case T-680/15: Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2017 — Les Éclaires GmbH v EUIPO — L’éclaireur International (L’ECLAIREUR) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark L’ECLAIREUR — Genuine use of the mark — Article 15(1), Article 51(1)(a) and Article 76(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Rule 22(6) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — Alleged divergence from Part C, Section 6, of the EUIPO Guidelines for examination)

text:
               26.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 202/17

         Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2017 — Les Éclaires GmbH v EUIPO — L’éclaireur International (L’ECLAIREUR)
   (Case T-680/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark L’ECLAIREUR - Genuine use of the mark - Article 15(1), Article 51(1)(a) and Article 76(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Rule 22(6) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Alleged divergence from Part C, Section 6, of the EUIPO Guidelines for examination))
   (2017/C 202/29)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Les Éclaires GmbH (Nuremberg, Germany) (represented by: S. Bund, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: L’éclaireur International (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: M. Decker, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 September 2015 (Case R 2266/2014-1), relating to revocation proceedings between Les Éclaires and L’éclaireur International.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Les Éclaires GmbH to pay the costs, including the costs necessarily incurred by L’éclaireur International before the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

      (1)  OJ C 38, 1.2.2016.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 June 2003 in Case C-425/01: Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Incomplete transposition of Directive 89/391/EEC — Safety and health of workers)

text:
2.8.2003                 EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                C 184/13
2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
(1) OJ C 31 of 2.2.2002.
                                                                                of 12 June 2003
                                                                              in Case C-425/01: Commission of the European Commu-
                                                                                nities v Portuguese Republic (1)
                                                                              (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Incom-
                                                                              plete transposition of Directive 89/391/EEC — Safety and
                                                                                health of workers)
                                                                                (2003/C 184/24)
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Language of the case: Portuguese)
                            (Fifth Chamber)                                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in
                                                                                the European Court Reports)
                           of 26 June 2003
                                                                              In Case C-425/01, Commission of the European Communities
                                                                              (Agents: H. Kreppel and M. França) v Portuguese Republic
in Case C-422/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                     (Agents: L. Fernandes and F. Ribeiro Lopes): Application for a
the Regeringsrätten): Försäkringsaktiebolaget Skandia                         declaration that the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its
          (publ), Ola Ramstedt v Riksskatteverket (1)                         obligations under Articles 4 and 10 to 12 of Council Directive
                                                                              89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures
                                                                              to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers
(Occupational endowment pension insurance — Policy taken                      at work (OJ 1989 L 183, p. 1), the Court (Fifth Chamber),
out with a company in another Member State — Difference                       composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber, C.W.
    in tax treatment — Compatibility with Article 49 EC)                      A. Timmermans, P. Jann, S. von Bahr (Rapporteur) and
                                                                              A. Rosas, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass,
                                                                              Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 June 2003, in which it:
                            (2003/C 184/23)
                                                                              1.    Dismisses the action;
                     (Language of the case: Swedish)                          2.    Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay
                                                                                the costs.
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in
                                                                              (1) OJ C 348 of 8.12.2001.
                       the European Court Reports)
In Case C-422/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Regeringsrätten (Sweden) for a preliminary ruling in                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
the proceedings pending before that court between Försäk-
ringsaktiebolaget Skandia (publ), Ola Ramstedt and Riksskatte-                                           (Fifth Chamber)
verket, on the interpretation of the EC Treaty and Article 49
EC in particular, the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:                                                of 5 June 2003
M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber,
C.W.A. Timmermans, A. La Pergola, P. Jann and A. Rosas,                       in Case C-438/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has                  the Cour de cassation): Design Concept SA v Flanders
given a judgment on 26 June 2003, in which it has ruled:                                                    Expo SA (1)
                                                                              (Sixth VAT Directive — Article 9(2)(e) — Place of taxable
Article 49 EC precludes an insurance policy issued by an insurance               transactions — Fiscal connection — Advertising services)
company established in another Member State which meets the
conditions laid down in national law for occupational pension insur-                                     (2003/C 184/25)
ance, apart from the condition that the policy must be issued by an
insurance company operating in the national territory, from being                                  (Language of the case: French)
treated differently in terms of taxation, with income tax effects which,
depending on the circumstances in the individual case, may be less            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in
favourable.                                                                                the European Court Reports)
(1) OJ C 84 of 6.4.2002.                                                      In Case C-438/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
                                                                              EC by the Cour de cassation (Luxembourg) for a preliminary
                                                                              ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between


title: Case C-193/04: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 September 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Fazenda Pública v Organon Portuguesa — Produtos Químicos e Farmacêuticos Lda (Indirect taxes on the raising of capital — Directive 69/335/EEC — Disposal of shares of a limited company)

text:
               28.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/2

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 September 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Fazenda Pública v Organon Portuguesa — Produtos Químicos e Farmacêuticos Lda
   (Case C-193/04) (1)

   (Indirect taxes on the raising of capital - Directive 69/335/EEC - Disposal of shares of a limited company)
   (2006/C 261/03)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Referring court
   Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Fazenda Pública

      Respondent: Organon Portuguesa — Produtos Químicos e Farmacêuticos Lda
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Interpretation of Articles 4(3), 10(c) and 12(1)(e) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ, English Special Edition, 1969(II), p. 412), as amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985 (OJ 1985 L 156, p. 23) — Compatibility with those provisions of fees payable for the drawing-up of a notarially attested share transfer
   Operative part of the judgment
   Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985, does not preclude national legislation which provides, in respect of the drawing-up of a notarial act recording a disposal of shares which is not linked to an increase in capital, for the charging of fees which are fixed by reference to a flat rate and/or the value of the shares being disposed of.

      (1)  OJ C 156, 12.6.2004.


title: Action brought on 23 March 1996 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic (Case C-91/96)

text:
18 . 5 . 96             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       No C 145/5
Action brought on 23 March 1996 by the Commission of                             Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic                 Oberlandesgericht Diisseldorf by decision of that court of
                          ( Case C-91 /96 )                            22 November 1995 in the commercial register proceedings
                                                                            concerning Daihatsu Deutschland GmbH ( appellant:
                            ( 96/C 145/09 )                                      Verband Deutscher Daihatsu-Hàndler e.V. )
                                                                                ( Case C-97/96 )
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before                                          ( 96/C 145/ 10 )
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
23 March 1996 by the Commission of the European                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Communities, represented by Maria Kontou Durande, of its               European Communities by a decision of the Third Civil
Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg at            Chamber of the Oberlandesgericht ( Higher Regional
the office of Carlos Gômez de la Cruz, also of the Legal               Court), Diisseldorf, of 22 November 1995 , which was
Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                     received at the Court Registry on 26 March 1996 , for a
                                                                       preliminary ruling in the commercial register proceedings
                                                                       concerning Daihatsu Deutschland GmbH ( appellant:
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            Verband Deutscher Daihatsu-Hàndler                  e .V. ) on the
                                                                       following question :
1 . Declare that, by failing to bring into force within                Does Article 6 of the First Council Directive 68/ 151 /EEC on
      the prescribed period the laws, regulations and                  company law of 9 March 1 96 8 ( 1 ) have direct effect if under
      administrative provisions necessary to comply with:              German law the ( sole ) penalty to ensure enforcement of the
                                                                       duty to disclose the yearly accounts of a private limited
      ( a ) Council Directive 92/118/EEC of 17 December                company is the imposition by the Registration Court of an
            1992 laying down animal health and public health           administrative fine of up to DM 10 000, but the
            requirements governing trade in and imports into           Registration Court may intervene only on application from
            the Community of products not subject to the said          a partner, a creditor or the company's works council, and
            requirements laid down in specific Community               does any such possible direct effect of that provision mean
            rules referred to in Annex A ( I ) to Directive            that, in addition to the persons entitled under German law
            89/662/EEC and, as regards pathogens, to Directive         to make an application, any person may apply for an
            90/425/EEC ( t ),                                          administrative fine to be imposed or that such a right is
                                                                       available at least to an association of traders which under its
      ( b ) Council Directive 93/52/EEC of 24 June 1993                articles of association must protect the interests of its
            amending Directive 89/556/EEC on animal health             members who have a contractual relationship with the
            conditions governing intra-Community trade in              private limited company which has failed to comply with its
            and importation from third countries of embryos of         duty to disclose those accounts ?
            domestic animals of the bovine species ( 2 ),              (') OJ, English Special Edition 1968 ( I ), p. 41 .
      the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil the obligations
      imposed on it by the Treaty and by those Directives .
                                                                                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the
2 . Order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                      Verwaltungsgericht Darmstadt by order of that court of
                                                                            29 February 1996 in the administrative proceedings
                                                                                between Kasim Ertanir and Land Hessen
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                   ( Case C-98/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 145/11 )
The period within which the Member States were to adopt
the measures necessary to transpose Directives 92/118/EEC              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
and 93/52/EEC expired on 1 January 1994 .                              European Communities by an order of the
                                                                       Verwaltungsgericht ( Administrative Court ) Darmstadt —
                                                                       Fifth Chamber — of 29 February 1996 , which was received
The Hellenic Republic has not yet communicated the                     at the Court Registry on 26 March 1996, for a preliminary
adoption of such measures, notwithstanding the formal
                                                                       ruling in the administrative proceedings between Kasim
notice and the reasoned opinion addressed to it by the
Commission .
                                                                       Ertanir and Land Hessen on the following questions :
                                                                       ( a ) What are the consequences, for the maintenance of
Accordingly, it should be declared that it has failed to fulfil               work and residence permits, of breaks in lawful
its obligations .                                                             residence or periods of work without a work permit
                                                                              with regard to claims that have already arisen under
                                                                              Article 6 ( 1 ) of Decision No 1 /80 of the EEC-Turkey
(') OJ No L 62, 15 . 3 . 1993 , p . 49.                                       Association Council on the development of the
( 2 ) OJ No L 175 , 19 . 7. 1993 , p . 21 .                                   Association ( published in the Official Reports of the
                                                                              Federal Institution of Labour [ANBA] 1981 , p . 4 ) —
                                                                              hereinafter abbreviated to ' Decision No 1 /80 ' — in so
                                                                              far as such defective periods are not treated under


title: Case T-193/10: Order of the General Court of 18 November 2010 — Scuola Elementare Maria Montessori v Commission

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/57

         Order of the General Court of 18 November 2010 — Scuola Elementare Maria Montessori v Commission
   (Case T-193/10) (1)

   ()
   2011/C 30/106
   Language of the case: Italian
   The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 179, 3.7.2010.


title: Case T-461/15: Action brought on 10 August 2015 — Guccio Gucci v OHIM — Guess? IP Holder (Representation of interlaced signs)

text:
               5.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/32

         Action brought on 10 August 2015 — Guccio Gucci v OHIM — Guess? IP Holder (Representation of interlaced signs)
   (Case T-461/15)
   (2015/C 328/29)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Guccio Gucci SpA (Florence, Italy) (represented by: P. Roncaglia, F. Rossi and N. Parrotta, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Guess? IP Holder LP (Los Angeles, United States)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: Figurative mark (Representation of interlaced signs) — Community trade mark No 5 538 012

      Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 May 2015 in Case R 2049/2014-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs incurred by the applicant during these proceedings;

               —

               order Guess? IP Holder L.P. to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before both the OHIM Cancellation Division and the Board of Appeal.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-139/10: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 October 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Prism Investments BV v J.A. van der Meer, in his capacity as receiver in the liquidation of Arilco Holland BV (Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Enforcement — Grounds for refusing enforcement — Compliance, in the State in which it was delivered, with the judgment in respect of which the declaration of enforceability is sought)

text:
               3.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/5

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 October 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Prism Investments BV v J.A. van der Meer, in his capacity as receiver in the liquidation of Arilco Holland BV
   (Case C-139/10) (1)

   (Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Enforcement - Grounds for refusing enforcement - Compliance, in the State in which it was delivered, with the judgment in respect of which the declaration of enforceability is sought)
   2011/C 355/07
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Prism Investments BV

      Respondent: J.A. van der Meer, in his capacity as receiver in the liquidation of Arilco Holland BV

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Articles 34, 35, 43, 44 and 45 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Grounds for refusal — Exhaustive list — Performance of the obligation under the national judgment which is the subject of the application for a declaration of enforceability

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 45 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as precluding the court with which an appeal is lodged under Article 43 or Article 44 of that regulation from refusing or revoking a declaration of enforceability of a judgment on a ground other than those set out in Articles 34 and 35 thereof, such as compliance with that judgment in the Member State of origin.

      (1)  OJ C 134, 22.05.2010.


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 12 September 2001 in Case T-132/01 R: Euroalliages and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Application for interim measures — Article 108 of the Rules of Procedure)

text:
C 3/32                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                          5.1.2002
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 Ferroatlántica, established in Madrid, represented by D. Voille-
                                                                           mot and O. Prost, avocats, against Commission of the Euro-
                         of 10 July 2001                                   pean Communities (Agents: V. Kreuschitz, S. Meany and
                                                                           A.P. Bentley) — application for the amendment of the
                                                                           operative part of the order of the President of the Court of
in Case T-191/00: Werner F. Edlinger v Commission of                       First Instance of 1 August 2001 in Case T-132/01 R Euroalliag-
                the European Communities (1)                               es and Others v Commission, not yet published in the ECR —
                                                                           the President of the Court of First Instance made an order on
(Action for failure to act — Actionable omissions —                        12 September 2001, the operative part of which is as follows:
                         Inadmissibility)
                          (2002/C 3/55)                                    1.    The application is dismissed.
                  (Language of the case: German)                           2.    The costs are reserved.
In Case T-191/00, Werner F. Edlinger, resident in Vienna,
represented by F. Frisch, lawyer, against the Commission of
the European Communities (Agents: U. Wölker and C. Laden-
burger) — application for a declaration that the Commission
unlawfully failed to act in relation to measures taken on
31 January 2000 against the Republic of Austria by the Heads
of State or Government of the fourteen other Member States
of the European Union — the Court of First Instance (Fourth                Action brought on 20 September 2001 by Japan Tobacco
Chamber), composed of P. Mengozzi, President and V. Tiili                  Inc. and JT International S.A. against the Council of the
and R. M. Moura Ramos, Judges; Registrar H. Jung, made an                         European Union and the European Parliament
order on 10 July 2001, the operative part of which is the
following:
                                                                                (Case T-223/01)
1)   The case is dismissed as inadmissible.
                                                                                (2002/C 3/57)
2)   The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
(1) OJ C 285 of 7.10.2000.
                                                                           An action against the Council of the European Union and the
                                                                           European Parliament was brought before the Court of First
                                                                           Instance of the European Communities on 20 September 2001
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                               by Japan Tobacco Inc. and JT International S.A., represented
                           INSTANCE                                        by Mr Onno Brouwer and Mr Paul Lomas of Freshfields
                                                                           Bruckhaus Deringer, London (United Kingdom)
                     of 12 September 2001
in Case T-132/01 R: Euroalliages and Others v Com-                         The applicants claim that the Court should:
           mission of the European Communities
(Application for interim measures — Article 108 of the                     —     annul Article 7 of the Directive in its entirety; alternatively
                       Rules of Procedure)
                                                                           —     annul Article 7 of the Directive to the extent that it
                          (2002/C 3/56)                                          precludes the applicants from using their trade mark
                                                                                MILD SEVEN within the European Union; and
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           —     order that, pursuant to Article 87 of the Rules of
                                                                                Procedure of the Court of First Instance, the European
In Case T-132/01 R: Euroalliages, established in Brussels,                       Parliament and/or the Council of the European Union
Péchiney électrométallurgie, established in Courbevoie                           pay the costs of these proceedings, including those of the
(France), Vargön Alloys AB, established in Vargön (Sweden),                      applicants and any third parties.


title: Case C-387/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Mercantil (Spain) lodged on 1 October 2009 — Entidad de Gestión de Derechos de los Productores Audiovisuales (EGEDA) v Magnatrading S.L.

text:
               19.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 312/18

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Mercantil (Spain) lodged on 1 October 2009 — Entidad de Gestión de Derechos de los Productores Audiovisuales (EGEDA) v Magnatrading S.L.
   (Case C-387/09)
   2009/C 312/30
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado Mercantil No 1 de Santa Cruz de Tenerife

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Entidad de Gestión de Derechos de los Productores Audiovisuales (EGEDA)

      Defendant: Magnatrading S.L.

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the concept of ‘fair compensation’ in Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29/EC (1) a new Community concept which must be interpreted in the same way in all the Member States of the European Community?

               2.

               If the reply to the first question is in the affirmative:

                           2.1.

                           If a national system of equitable remuneration for private copying existed before the entry into force of Directive 2001/29/EC, must the national provisions be interpreted ‘in conformity’ with the new concept of ‘fair compensation’ for private copying following the entry into force of Directive 29/2001?

                           2.2.

                           Must the scope of the private copying exception in Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29, and the criteria set out in recital 35 in the preamble to the directive, be taken into account in order to determine which devices are subject to the payment of fair compensation and the amount thereof?
                           If that is the case, would it be compatible with the Community concept of ‘fair compensation for private copying’ (a) to establish a liability to pay that compensation in respect of devices intended for personal and professional use other than ‘private copying’ and/or (b) to set a flat-rate payment which does not take account of whether the devices are used for the purposes of private copying and the harm which is liable to result from such use, thereby making situations where there is no harm or where the harm is negligible also subject to the payment of compensation?

                           2.3.

                           Is a system which, by setting a private copying limit, establishes a general liability to pay fair compensation on a certain category of equipment or media (for example, recordable CD-R and DVD-R data computer disks), irrespective of whether they are purchased by natural persons for private use or by natural persons for professional use, in order to generate and store their own data or in compliance with legal obligations, or by legal persons who do not benefit from the private copying exception in any circumstances, compatible with Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29?

               3.

               If the reply to the first question is in the negative:

                           3.1.

                           Does that mean that Member States have complete freedom to lay down the criteria and mechanisms for determining which devices are subject to the payment of fair compensation for private copying and the amounts thereof, or are there certain limits on that freedom and, if so, what are they?

                           3.2.

                           Does that mean that Member States are entitled to permit private third parties to collect compensation in respect of works which authors have assigned voluntarily and free of charge to a society by means of licences or are there certain limits on that right and, if so, what are they?

                           3.3.

                           Does that mean that Member States are entitled to permit private third parties to collect compensation from users where such users lawfully comply with a provision which is public and binding or are there certain limits on that right and, if so, what are they?

      (1)  Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society
   OJ L 167, p. 10