title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 March 2003 in Case T-174/01: Jean M. Goulbourn v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — Application for Community word mark Silk Cocoon — Earlier word mark COCOON — Proof of genuine use of earlier mark — Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Right to be heard)

text:
C 124/18                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                             24.5.2003
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                3.     Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay half of
                                                                                the applicants’ costs;
                         of 19 March 2003                                  4.     Orders the applicants to bear half of their own costs.
in Case T-213/00: CMA CGM and Others v Commission                          (1 ) OJ C 316 of 4.11.2000.
               of the European Communities ( 1)
(Competition — Agreement between members of a liner
conference and independent shipping companies — Charges
and surcharges — Legal basis — Ryegulation (EEC)
No 4056/86 — Regulation (EEC) No 1017/68 — Relevant
market — Proof of infringement — Limitation period —                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                               Fine)
                                                                                of 12 March 2003
                          (2003/C 124/30)
                                                                           in Case T-174/01: Jean M. Goulbourn v Office for Harmon-
                                                                           isation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                   (Language of the case: English)                                                        (OHIM) ( 1)
                                                                           (Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — Appli-
                                                                           cation for Community word mark Silk Cocoon — Earlier
                                                                           word mark COCOON — Proof of genuine use of earlier
In Case T-213/00: CMA CGM, established in Marseilles                       mark — Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94
(France), Cho Yang Shipping Co. Ltd, established in Seoul                                          — Right to be heard)
(South Korea), Evergreen Marine Corp. Ltd, established in
Taipei (Taiwan), Hanjin Shipping Co. Ltd, established in Taipei,
Hapag-Lloyd Container Linie GmbH, established in Seoul,                                                (2003/C 124/31)
Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd, established in Tokyo (Japan),
Malaysia International Shipping Corporation Berhad, estab-                                     (Language of the case: German)
lished in Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia), Mitsui OSK Lines Ltd,
established in Tokyo, Neptune Orient Lines Ltd, established in
Singapore (Singapore), Nippon Yusen Kaisha, established in
Tokyo, Orient Overseas Container Line Ltd, established in
                                                                           In Case T-174/01: Jean M. Goulbourn, residing at Dasmarinas
Wanchai (Hong Kong), P & O Nedlloyd Container Line Ltd,
established in London, Senator Lines GmbH, successor in                    Village, Makati, Metro Manila (Philippines), represented by
                                                                           S. Jackermeier, lawyer, v Office for Harmonisation in the
title to DSR-Senator Lines GmbH, established in Bremen
                                                                           Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agent: G.
(Germany), Yangming Marine Transport Corp., established in
Taipei, represented initially by J. Pheasant, C. Barlen, M. Levitt,        Schneider), the other party before the Court being Redcats SA,
                                                                           established in Roubaix (France), represented by A. Bertrand
D. Waelbroeck and U. Zinsmeister, and subsequently by
                                                                           and T. Reisch, lawyers: Action brought against the decision of
J. Pheasant, M. Levitt, D. Waelbroeck and U. Zinsmeister,
                                                                           the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in
lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Com-
                                                                           the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 April
mission of the European Communities (Agents: initially P.
Oliver and E. Gippini Fournier, and, subsequently, M. Oliver):             2001 in Case R 641/2000-3 relating to an opposition
                                                                           procedure between Redcats SA and Jean M. Goulbourn, the
Application for the annulment of Commission Decision 2000/
                                                                           Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of:
627/EC of 16 May 2000 relating to a proceeding pursuant to
Article 81 of the EC Treaty (IV/34.018 — Far East Trade Tariff             R.M. Moura Ramos, President, J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij,
                                                                           Judges, Registrar: D. Christensen, Administrator, has given a
Charges and Surcharges Agreement (FETTCSA) (OJ 2000
L 268, p. 1), the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber),                 judgment on 12 March 2003, in which it:
composed of: M. Jaeger, President, K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi,
Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a         1.     Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office
judgment on 19 March 2003, in which it:                                           for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                                                                                Designs) of 25 April 2001 (Case R 641/2000-3);
1.    Annuls Article 4 of Commission Decision 2000/627/EC of               2.     Orders the Office to pay the costs.
      16 May 2000 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81
      of the EC Treaty (IV/34.018 — Far East Trade Tariff Charges
      and Surcharges Agreement (FETTCSA);                                  (1 ) OJ C 317 of 10.11.2001.
2.    Dismisses the remainder of the action;


title: Case C-350/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 21 August 2006 — Gerhard Schultz-Hoff v Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund

text:
               18.11.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/21

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 21 August 2006 — Gerhard Schultz-Hoff v Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund
   (Case C-350/06)
   (2006/C 281/33)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Landesarbeitsgericht Düsseldorf
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Gerhard Schultz-Hoff

      Respondent: Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC (1) (= Article 7 of Directive 93/104/EC) to be understood as meaning that workers must in any event receive minimum annual paid leave of four weeks [and that] in particular leave not taken by a worker because of illness during the leave year must be authorised at a later date, or can national legal provisions and/or national practice stipulate that an entitlement to annual paid leave is extinguished if workers become incapacitated for work during the leave year before leave is authorised and do not recover their capacity for work before the end of the leave year or the carry-over period laid down by statute, collective agreement or individual agreement?

               2.

               Is Article 7(2) of Directive 2003/88/EC to be understood as meaning that at the end of the employment relationship workers have, in any event, a claim to financial compensation in respect of leave accrued but not taken (an allowance in lieu of leave), or can national legislation and/or national practice stipulate that workers will not receive an allowance in lieu of leave if, up to the end of the leave year or the relevant carry-over period, they are incapacitated for work and/or if after the ending of the employment relationship they draw a disability or invalidity pension?

               3.

               In the event that the Court of Justice answers Questions 1 and 2 in the affirmative:
               Is Article 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC to be understood as meaning that the entitlement to annual leave or an allowance in lieu requires the worker actually to have worked during the leave year, or does the entitlement arise also in the case of excusable absence (by reason of illness) or inexcusable absence in the same leave year?

      (1)  OJ L 299, p. 9.


title: Case C-132/13: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln — Germany) — Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs eV v ILME GmbH (Request for a preliminary ruling  — Approximation of laws  — Directive 2006/95/EC  — Definition of ‘electrical equipment —’ – CE conformity marking  — Housing for multipole electrical connectors)

text:
               5.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 135/15

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln — Germany) — Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs eV v ILME GmbH
   (Case C-132/13) (1)

   ((Request for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Directive 2006/95/EC - Definition of ‘electrical equipment - ’– CE conformity marking - Housing for multipole electrical connectors))
   2014/C 135/16
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht Köln

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs eV

      Defendant: ILME GmbH

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Landgericht Köln — Interpretation of Articles 1, 8 and 10 of, and Annexes II to IV to, Directive 2006/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the harmonisation of the laws of Member States relating to electrical equipment designed for use within certain voltage limits (OJ 2006 L 374, p. 10) — Notion of ‘electrical equipment’ — Prohibition of affixing the ‘CE’ conformity marking to the housings of multipole connectors sold as separate parts.

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 1 of Directive 2006/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the harmonisation of the laws of Member States relating to electrical equipment designed for use within certain voltage limits must be interpreted as meaning that housing for multipole connectors for industrial use, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, is covered by the definition of ‘electrical equipment’ for the purposes of that provision and must, therefore, bear the CE marking as long as its proper incorporation and use for the purpose for which it was made does not mean that it ceases to comply with the relevant safety requirements for which it has been examined.

      (1)  OJ C 164, 8.6.2013.


title: Action brought on 23 February 1995 by Italcementi SpA against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-65/95)

text:
No C 119/24           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    13 . 5 . 95
IV.  Fines                                                           — annul the Commission's Decision of 23 September 1993
                                                                         (mentioned in the Commission's letter of 27 September
     1 . Failure to provide adequate reasons to explain why              1993 ), where it provides for the closure of the
         the applicant should be fined .                                 international part of the proceeding in relation to the
                                                                         12 German undertakings and six Spanish undertakings
     2. Breach of the principle of natural justice and of                therein specified,
         Regulation No 17/62, by imposing a huge fine on
         the applicant, without adequately establishing any          — order the Commission to pay the costs.
         fault on the part of the company.
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     3 . Breach of the principles of proportionality, natural        The action is based on the following grounds :
         justice and equal treatment.
                                                                       I. Infringement of procedural rules
 V. Duration
                                                                           1 . Infringement of the rights of the defence :
     1 . Manifest error of assessment in holding that the                      The applicant argues that the Commission has
         applicant was party for 11 years to a 'single and                     infringed a number of fundamental rights of the
         continuous agreement' with other producers, when                      defence, particularly the right to be heard and the
         the Decision itself alleges that other producers had                  right of access to the file .
         reached agreement among themselves to take
         various actions against the applicant during that                 2. Breach of the principle of the protection of
         period.                                                               legitimate expectations and the principle of
                                                                               non-discrimination. Inconsistency with a previous
     2 . Incorrect determination of the duration of the                        decision .
         alleged infringement, without regard to the                       3 . The formulation of new objections in the
         statistical, commercial and technical evidence                        Decision .
         indicating that the applicant at least was not party
         to any infringement during the relevant period.                  4. Non-observance of the time limits applicable to the
                                                                               Commission's action .
(M Cases IV/33.126 and 33.322 — Cement.
                                                                           5 . Defective adoption/authentication of the decision.
                                                                      II. Misapplication of Article 85 of the Treaty. The
                                                                          applicant argues that the accusations against it are
                                                                           unfounded, and that the Commission has misapplied
                                                                           Community law, especially Article 85 of the Treaty; its
Action brought on 23 February 1995 by Italcementi SpA                     position is based on the following grounds:
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                       (Case T-65/95 )                                     1 . The relevant geographical market was erroneously
                                                                               defined .
                        ( 95/C 119/47)
                                                                           2. Article 85 did not apply in the absence of a
                (Language of the case: Italian                                 competitive situation.
                                                                           3 . There was no           'single    and    continuous
An action against the Commission of the European                               infringement'.
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 23 February                       4. The conduct of the applicant in relation to:
1995 by Italcementi SpA, whose registered office is in                         ( a ) the 'Cembureau' agreement;
Bergamo (Italy), represented by André Faures of the Brussels
Bar, Cesare Lanciani of the Milan Bar, Albertu Predieri of                     ( b ) the 'European Task Force';
the Florence Bar, Mario Siragusa of the Rome Bar,
Francesca Moretti of the Bologna Bar, and Giulio Rizza of                      (c) the 'European Cement Export Committee';
                                                                                and
the Siracuse Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
at the Chambers of Elvinger, Hoss and Prussen, 15, Côte                        (d ) the 'White Cement Committee';
d'Eich, Luxembourg.
                                                                               could not be regarded as infringing Article 85 of the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                    Treaty.
                                                                     III. Infringement of Article 190 of the Treaty. The
— annul in whole or in part Commission Decision                           applicant argues that the Commission has seriously
    94/815/EC of 30 November 1994 relating to a                           infringed Article 190 of the Treaty, in particular
    proceeding under Article 85 of the EC Treaty ( Cases                  because :
    IV/33.126 and 33.322 ) ( x ), in so far as it concerns the
    applicant,                                                             1 , the Decision of 30 November 1994 is vitiated both
                                                                               by inconsistency between the statement of reasons
— in the alternative, annul or reduce the fines imposed                        and the operative part and by an insufficient
    upon the applicant,                                                        statement of reasons; and
 ---pagebreak--- 13 . 5 . 95          LEN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 119/25
      2 , no reasons whatever were given for the Decision of          Michael Esser-Wellié, Rechtsanwälte, Düsseldorf, with an
           23 September 1993 to close the proceeding in               address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Bonn
           relation to 12 German undertakings and six                 & Schmitt, 62 Avenue Guillaume.
           Spanish undertakings .
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
IV. In the alternative, the applicant argues that the fine
                                                                      — annul the defendant's Decision of 30 November 1994
      imposed should be reduced for infringement of
      Article 15 ( 2 ) of Regulation No 17/62 as regards:                 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC
                                                                          Treaty (IV/33.126 and 33.322 — Cement), notified to
       1 , the gravity and duration of the infringement;                  the applicant on 3 February 1995 , in so far as that
           and                                                            Decision relates to the applicant,
      2 , the calculation of the amount of the fine .                 — in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed on the
                                                                          applicant to such amount as the Court may
(!) OJ No L 343 , 30 . 12 . 1994, p . 1 .                                 determine,
                                                                      — order the defendant to pay the costs of the
                                                                          proceedings .
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Action brought on 24 February 1995 by Reinhard Lassek
against the Council of the European Union and the                      I. The applicant complains of the following breaches of
                                                                           formal law:
          Commission of the European Communities
                         ( Case T-67/95 )                                  1 . The defendant infringed essential procedural
                           ( 95/C 119/48 )                                     requirements by granting the applicant only partial
                                                                               access to documents during the administrative
                (Language of the case: German)                                 proceeding and no access whatever after the
                                                                               adoption of the Decision . The defendant based its
An action against the Council of the European Union and                        Decision on documents with which the applicant
the Commission of the European Communities was brought                         was unacquainted and also failed to translate
before the Court of First Instance of the European                             foreign-language evidence .
Communities on 24 February 1995 by Reinhard Lassek,                        2. The defendant failed to comply with the
Grefrath-Mulhausen (Federal Republic of Germany),                              Community-law requirements regarding evidence
represented by Dr Lukanow, Rechtsanwalt, Euskirchen,                           and made findings of fact in respect of complex sets
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers                      of individual circumstances and periods of time
of Dupong & Associés, 14A, Rue des Bains .                                     which were unsupported by evidence, or at any rate
                                                                               were supported by insufficient evidence.
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                           3 . The defendant provided inadequate and
— order the defendants to pay the applicant compensation                       contradictory reasons for its Decision and based it
     for the period of five milk years from 1 April 1988 in the                on findings which were both unsubstantiated and
     amount of DM 46 412,01 , together with 8 % interest                       incapable of verification.
     thereon from 1 July 1985 .
                                                                           4 . The calculation of the fine is defective since the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                            defendant wrongly proceeds on the basis of a
                                                                               particularly serious infringement, assumes that the
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in                    alleged infringement lasted for an excessively long
Case T-20/94 .                                                                 period of time and calculates the fine on the basis
                                                                               of an incaccurate turnover figure and reference
                                                                               period .
                                                                               By committing these breaches, the Commission
                                                                               infringed the principle of equal treatment in
   Action brought on 25 February 1995 by Holderbank                            contradictory proceedings as well as the principles
       Financière Glarus Aktiengesellschaft against the                        of a fair hearing and due process.
          Commission of the European Communities
                         (Case T-68/95 )                              II. The applicant complains of the following breaches of
                                                                           substantive law:
                           ( 95/C 119/49 )
                                                                           1 , ( a ) The applicant contests the defendant's
                (Language of tbe case: German)                                       allegations regarding the European Task Force
                                                                                and its incompatibility with Article 85 ( 1 ) of the
An action against the Commission of the European                                     EC Treaty. The applicant takes particular issue
Communities was brought before the Court of First                                    with the defendant's claim that the European
Instance of the European Communities on 25 February                                  Task Force remains active up to the present
1995 by Holderbank Financière Glarus Aktiengesellschaft,                             day: on the contrary, that body ceased activity
Jona ( Switzerland), represented by Cornelis Canenbley and                           at the end of May 1987.


title: Case C-2/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 3 January 2012 — Trianon Productie BV, other party: Revillon Chocolatier SAS

text:
               31.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 3 January 2012 — Trianon Productie BV, other party: Revillon Chocolatier SAS
   (Case C-2/12)
   2012/C 98/15
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Trianon Productie BV

      Respondent: Revillon Chocolatier SAS

      Questions referred

               1.

               As regards the grounds for refusal or invalidity in Article 3(1)(e)(iii) of Directive 89/104/EEC, (1) as codified in Directive 2008/95 (2) — according to which (shape) marks cannot consist exclusively of a shape which gives a substantial value to the goods — do these concern the reason (or reasons) for the purchasing decision of the relevant public?

               2.

               Is a shape a ‘shape which gives substantial value to the goods’ within the meaning of the provision referred to above

                           (a)

                           only if that shape must be regarded as the main or overriding value in comparison with other values (such as, in the case of foods, their taste or substance); or

                           (b)

                           also where the goods have other values, which must be regarded as equally substantial, in addition to that main or overriding value?

               3.

               Is the answer to Question 2 to be determined on the basis of the view of the majority of the target public, or can the courts rule that the view of just part of that public is sufficient for the value concerned to be deemed ‘substantial’ within the meaning of the provision referred to above?

               4.

               In so far as the answer to Question 3 falls to be answered as indicated in the latter part of that question, what requirement is to be applied as regards the size of the relevant part of the public?

      (1)  First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1).

      (2)  OJ 2008 L 299, p. 25.


title: Case C-194/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 4 April 2007 — SAVA e C. S.r.l., SIEME S.r.l. and GRADED S.p.A. v Mostra d'Oltremare S.p.A. and Others

text:
               23.6.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 140/13

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 4 April 2007 — SAVA e C. S.r.l., SIEME S.r.l. and GRADED S.p.A. v Mostra d'Oltremare S.p.A. and Others
   (Case C-194/07)
   (2007/C 140/21)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Consiglio di Stato
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Sava e C. s.r.l., Sieme s.r.l. and Graded S.p.A.

      Defendants: Mostra d'Oltremare S.p.A. and Others
   Question referred
   Where a consortium without legal personality has participated as such in a procedure for the award of a public contract and has not been awarded that contract, is Article 1 of Council Directive 89/665/EEC (1) of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Council Directive 92/50/EEC (2) of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts, to be interpreted as precluding the possibility under national law for an individual member of that consortium to bring an action against the decision awarding the contract?

      (1)  OJ L 395, p. 33.

      (2)  OJ L 209, p. 1.


title: Case T-9/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 January 2008 — Hoya v OHIM — Indo (AMPLITUDE) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark AMPLITUDE — Earlier national figurative mark AMPLY — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/41

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 January 2008 — Hoya v OHIM — Indo (AMPLITUDE)
   (Case T-9/05) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark AMPLITUDE - Earlier national figurative mark AMPLY - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2008/C 51/75)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Hoya Kabushiki Kaisha (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: A. Nordemann, C.-R. Haarmann, F. Schwab and M. Nentwig, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court of First Instance: Indo Internacional SA (Hospitalet de Llobregat, Spain) (represented by: M. Currel Aguilà, lawyer)
   Re:
   ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 November 2004 (Case R 433/2004-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Indo Internacional SA and Hoya Kabushiki Kaisha
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Hoya Kabushiki Kaisha to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 106, 30.4.2005.


title: Case C-389/15: Action brought on 17 July 2015 — European Commission v Council of the European Union

text:
               21.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/42

         Action brought on 17 July 2015 — European Commission v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-389/15)
   (2015/C 311/45)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, J. Guillem Carrau, B. Hartmann, Agents)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Council of 7 May 2015 authorising the opening of negotiations on a revised Lisbon Agreement on Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications as regards matters falling within the competence of the European Union;

               —

               maintain the effects of the contested decision, where appropriate, until the entry into force, within a reasonable period from the delivery of the present judgment, of a new decision that is to be adopted by the Council of the European Union pursuant to Article 218(3), (4) and (8) TFEU;

               —

               order the Council of the European Union to bear the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      First plea: The contested Decision acknowledges the existence of competence of the Member States, in breach of Article 3 TFEU, since the negotiation concerns an agreement which falls within the exclusive competence of the Union

      Second plea: Infringement of Articles 207(3) and 218(3), (4) and (8) TFEU because the Council has appointed Member States as ‘negotiators’, in a matter of EU competence, and has not adopted the contested Decision in accordance with the applicable majority


title: Case T-12/02: Action brought on 24 January 2002 by Abraham Dekker against Europol

text:
16.3.2002             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 68/21
Action brought on 24 January 2002 by Spyridon de                         Action brought on 24 January 2002 by Abraham Dekker
Athanassios Pappas against Commission of the European                                             against Europol
                          Communities
                                                                                (Case T-12/02)
                         (Case T-11/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 68/37)
                        (2002/C 68/36)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                   (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                An action against Europol was brought before the Court of
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               First Instance of the European Communities on 24 January
European Communities on 24 January 2002 by Spyridon de                   2002 by Abraham Dekker, residing in Dordrecht (Nether-
Athanassios Pappas, residing in Kraainem (Belgium), represent-           lands), represented by Gerrit Pieter Jongeneel and Serge
ed by Konstantinos Adamantopoulos, lawyer.                               Alexsander Ray, lawyers.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of the appointing authority of 26 Octo-         —     annul the decision of the Director of Europol of 15 June
      ber 2001 in response to his complaint (R/277/01) of                      2001;
      5 June 2001;
                                                                         —     order that the applicant be compensated for the damage
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                                   suffered by him, to be specified in greater detail (relating
                                                                               to remuneration, invalidity and harm to his reputation);
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          —     order Europol to pay the costs.
The applicant, formerly a Director-General at the Commission,
contests the decision fixing the duration of the monthly                 Pleas in law and main arguments
allowance paid to him following his retirement in the interests
of the service, decided on the basis of Article 50 of the Staff          The contested decision prejudices the applicant, inasmuch as
Regulations, on the ground that it does not take into account,           his contract was extended for only six months instead of one
in the computation, of the applicant’s period of service in              year, as should normally be the case. According to the
the national administrative authorities of Greece and the                applicant, that extension of the contract was wrongly used as
Netherlands prior to his taking up his duties with the                   a means of assessing his performance. However, such an
Communities.                                                             assessment must be carried out on the basis of Articles 2, 23
                                                                         to 29 and 88 of the Staff Regulations applicable to Europol
He argues that where an official takes up duties with the                employees (1). According to the applicant, however, there has
Communities after having worked for a national adminis-                  never been a negative evaluation of his skills on the basis of
tration and such administration has paid to the Communities              those articles.
the actuarial equivalent of his prior pension entitlement or, as
in his case, the sums repaid from the pension fund, the period
of former service of such official is, pursuant to Articles 11           The applicant further pleads the absence of an adequate
and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations (General                   statement of reasons for the contested decision, inasmuch as
Provisions), deemed to be actual service, that is to say service         the reasons given are not supported in any way, or are even
provided within the Communities, with all the attendant legal            clearly incorrect. Moreover, according to the applicant, a
effects. The applicant therefore takes the view that the                 period of six months for the extension of his contract is
Commission ought to have taken into account his period of                contrary to Article 6 of the Staff Regulations. Given that the
service in the national administrations and that, by failing to          length of the applicant’s initial contract was one year, it should
do so, has acted unlawfully.                                             likewise have been extended for a minimum of one year.
                                                                         Lastly, the applicant pleads violation of the principle of non-
                                                                         discrimination, inasmuch as he is the only official whose
The applicant also claims that the contested decision disregards         contract has not been extended for a minimum of one year.
the principle of non-discrimination and the Community rules
on freedom of movement of persons.
                                                                         (1) Council Act of 3 December 1998 laying down the staff regulations
                                                                             applicable to Europol employees (OJ C 26, 30.1.1999, p. 23).


title: Case C-28/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 September 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Eurogate Distribution GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt (Community Customs Code — Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 — Article 204(1)(a) — Customs warehousing procedure — Customs debt incurred through non-fulfilment of an obligation — Delayed entry in stock records of information concerning the removal of goods from a customs warehouse)

text:
               17.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/4

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 September 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Eurogate Distribution GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt
   (Case C-28/11) (1)

   (Community Customs Code - Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Article 204(1)(a) - Customs warehousing procedure - Customs debt incurred through non-fulfilment of an obligation - Delayed entry in stock records of information concerning the removal of goods from a customs warehouse)
   2012/C 355/05
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Hamburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Eurogate Distribution GmbH

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Hamburg — Interpretation of Article 204(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992, establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) — Delayed entry in stock records of information concerning the removal of goods from a customs warehouse — Whether arising of the customs debt admissible as the penalty for that failure

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 204(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 648/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 2005, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of non-Community goods, non-fulfilment of the obligation to enter the removal of the goods from the customs warehouse in the appropriate stock records, at the latest when the goods leave the customs warehouse, gives rise to a customs debt in respect of those goods, even if they have been re-exported.

      (1)  OJ C 238, 13.8.2011.


title: Case F-73/13: Action brought on 17th July 2013 — ZZ v ECB

text:
               21.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 274/33

         Action brought on 17th July 2013 — ZZ v ECB
   (Case F-73/13)
   2013/C 274/55
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Levi, Lawyer)

      Defendant: European Central Bank

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   The annulment of the ECB’s decision of 28 May 2013 imposing a disciplinary dismissal to the Applicant and the compensation of the moral prejudice he suffered.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the European Central Bank dated 28 May 2013 imposing the disciplinary dismissal with effect from 31 August 2013;

               —

               as a consequence, fully reinstate the Applicant with the appropriate publicity in order to restore his good name;

               —

               in any case, compensate the moral prejudice suffered by the Applicant evaluated ex aequo et bono at 20 000,00 EUR;

               —

               reimburse all the costs.


title: Case F-113/14: Action brought on 20 October 2014  — ZZ and Others v Commission

text:
               12.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/55

         Action brought on 20 October 2014 — ZZ and Others v Commission
   (Case F-113/14)
   (2015/C 007/68)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: ZZ and Others (represented by: T. Bontinck and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   The finding of illegality of Article 45 and Annex I of the Staff Regulations and the transitional measures relating thereto, and the annulment of decisions of the appointing authority, of both general and individual scope, relating to the promotion of the eight applicants, officials in grades AD 12 and AD 13, as part of the 2014 annual promotion exercise.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and Annex I as well as the transitional measures relating thereto to be illegal;

               —

               Annul the decisions of the appointing authority, of both general and individual scope, to block any possibility of promotion for the applicants, as officials in grade AD 12 or AD 13, as part of the 2014 annual promotion exercise;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs;

               —

               In the alternative: annul the decisions of the appointing authority of both general and individual scope, to block any possibility of promotion for the applicants, as officials in grade AD 12 or AD 13, as part of the 2014 annual promotion exercise 2014;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 5 October 1999 in Case C-84/96: Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission of the European Communities (European Regional Development Fund — Automatic cancellation of payment obligations)

text:
C 20/2                  EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                          22.1.2000
     (b) second, the Judges of the other small Chamber; in the                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
          same order.
     For each case, the large Chamber shall be composed of:                                      (Sixth Chamber)
     — the President,
                                                                                of 5 October 1999
     — the Judge-Rapporteur,
                                                                        in Case C-84/96: Kingdom of the Netherlands v Com-
     — three Judges designated in the order set out in the                        mission of the European Communities (1)
          relevant list; the starting-point on that list shall be
          moved down one name at each general meeting.
                                                                        (European Regional Development Fund — Automatic cancel-
     Replacement of a Judge or Judges prevented from attending                           lation of payment obligations)
     shall be in the order set out in the list. However, should
     the President of a large Chamber be prevented from sitting,
     he shall be replaced preferably by the President of the small
     Chamber.                                                                                (2000/C 20/03)
     If the Court, or a Chamber, considers that a number of cases
     should not be heard and determined together (whether or
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
     not they are formally joined), the composition of the bench
     shall be that determined for the first of the cases discussed
     at a general meeting.’
                                                                        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
3.      In addition, as regards the period from 15 December                                in the European Court Reports)
1999 to 6 October 2000, the lists on the basis of which the
composition of the Fourth and Fifth Chambers is determined,
as set out in point 4 of the decision adopted by the Court at
its meeting on 6 October 1999, are amended as follows:                  In Case C-84/96: Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agents: J.S. van
                                                                        den Oosterkamp and M.A. Fierstra) v Commission of the
                                                                        European Communities (Agents: E. Mennens and P. Oliver) —
                                                                        application for annulment of the Commission’s decisions of
Fourth Chamber
                                                                        16 February 1996 and of the debit note based on one of those
                                                                        decisions, relating to the closure of ERDF infrastructure
                                                                        projects Nos 80.07.03.002 (Veendam-Musselkamaal) and
(President: Mr Edward)                                                  84.07.03.004 (Weg Veendam) co-financed by the European
                                                                        Regional Development Fund — the Court (Sixth Chamber),
                                                                        composed of: P.J.G. Kapteyn, President of the Chamber,
Messrs Kapteyn, La Pergola and Ragnemalm, Judges.                       G. Hirsch, J.L. Murray (Rapporteur), H. Ragnemalm and
                                                                        R. Schintgen, Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate General; L. Hew-
                                                                        lett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
Fifth Chamber                                                           5 October 1999, in which it:
(President: Mr Edward)                                                  1. Dismisses the action;
Messrs Kapteyn, La Pergola, Ragnemalm, Jann, Sevón and                 2. Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.
Wathelet, Judges.
                                                                        (1) OJ C 133 of 4.5.1996.
( 1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999, p. 1.


21.2.2004              EN                  Official Journal of the European Union                                     C 47/27
       Removal from the register of Case C-126/02 (1)              from the register of Case C-80/03: Commission of the
                                                                   European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands.
                         (2004/C 47/48)
                                                                   (1) OJ C 83, 5.4.2003.
By order of 23 October 2003 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-126/02: Commission of the
European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.
                                                                          Removal from the register of Case C-108/03 (1)
(1) OJ C 144, 15.6.2002.
                                                                                (2004/C 47/52)
                                                                   By order of 10 September 2003 the President of the Court of
       Removal from the register of Case C-35/03 (1)               Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                   from the register of Case C-108/03: Commission of the
                         (2004/C 47/49)                            European Communities v Kingdom of Spain.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 112, 10.5.2003.
By order of 6 November 2003 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-35/03: Commission of the
European Communities v Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 70, 22.3.2003.                                                   Removal from the register of Case C-142/03 (1)
                                                                                (2004/C 47/53)
       Removal from the register of Case C-57/03 (1)               By order of 11 November 2003 the President of the Court of
                                                                   Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                         (2004/C 47/50)                            from the register of Case C-142/03: Commission of the
                                                                   European Communities v Kingdom of Spain.
By order of 21 October 2003 the President of the Court of          (1) OJ C 146 of 21.6.2003.
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-57/03: Commission of the
European Communities v Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 83, 5.4.2003.
                                                                          Removal from the register of Case C-218/03 (1)
                                                                                (2004/C 47/54)
       Removal from the register of Case C-80/03 (1)
                                                                   By order of 10 September 2003 the President of the Court of
                         (2004/C 47/51)                            Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                   from the register of Case C-218/03: Commission of the
                                                                   European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
By order of 21 October 2003 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal            (1) OJ C 158, 5.7.2003.


title: Case C-98/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta Domstolen by order of that court of  8 February 2006  in Freeport PLC v Olle Arnoldsson

text:
               8.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/20

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta Domstolen by order of that court of 8 February 2006 in Freeport PLC v Olle Arnoldsson
   (Case C-98/06)
   (2006/C 86/38)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Högsta Domstolen (Supreme Court), Sweden of 8 February 2006, received at the Court Registry on 20 February 2006, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Freeport PLC, London, Great Britain and Olle Arnoldsson on the following questions:

               1.

               Is an action based on alleged liability in damages for a joint-stock company as a consequence of a commitment undertaken to be regarded as being based on contract for the application of Article 6(1) of the First Brussels Regulation, even though the party which gave the commitment at the relevant time was neither a representative nor an agent of the company?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative: is it a precondition for jurisdiction under Article 6(1), in addition to the conditions expressly laid down therein, that the action against a defendant domiciled in the same State as the court was not brought solely in order to have an action against another defendant heard by a court other than that which would otherwise have had jurisdiction to hear the case?

               3.

               If the answer to the first question is in the negative: should the likelihood of success of an action against the party domiciled in the same State as the court otherwise be taken into account in the determination of whether there is such a risk of irreconcilable judgments for the purposes of Article 6(1)?


title: Case F-98/13: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 9 September 2014  — Moriarty v Parliament (Civil service — Promotion — 2012 promotion procedure — Non-inclusion in the list of promoted officials — Application manifestly lacking any legal basis)

text:
               24.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 421/57

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 9 September 2014 — Moriarty v Parliament
   (Case F-98/13) (1)

   ((Civil service - Promotion - 2012 promotion procedure - Non-inclusion in the list of promoted officials - Application manifestly lacking any legal basis))
   2014/C 421/81
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Rainer Moriarty (Colmar-Berg, Luxembourg) (represented by: A. Salerno and B. Cortese, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: E. Despotopoulou and E. Taneva, Agents)

      Re:

   Application to annul the decision adopting the list of officials promoted in respect of the 2012 promotion procedure, in so far as, first, it does not include the applicant’s name among the officials of Grade AST 6, non-attested, promoted to Grade AST 7 and, secondly, it contains the name of another official.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               Mr Moriarty’s action is dismissed as manifestly lacking any legal basis.

               2.

               Mr Moriarty is to bear his own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Parliament.

      (1)  OJ C 367, 14.12.2013, p. 40.


title: Case F-88/11: Action brought on 16 September 2011 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               26.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/45

         Action brought on 16 September 2011 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-88/11)
   2011/C 347/84
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: R. Rata, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   The annulment of the Selection Board's decision not to include the applicant on the reserve list for the open competition EPSO/AD/148/09-RO — Administrators-Law (AD 5).

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               Annul the re-evaluation decision of the Selection Board of 9 November 2010 upholding its decision of 14 July 2010 not to include the applicant on the reserve list for the open competition EPSO/AD/148/09-RO;

               —

               annul the decision of the European Commission of 16 June 2011 rejecting the applicant's administrative complaint of 7 February 2011;

               —

               amend the reserve list for the open competition EPSO/AD/148/09-RO — Administrators-Law, so as to include the applicant's name or alternatively order the publication of a new reserve list including the applicant's name;

               —

               order the compensation of the moral prejudice suffered by the applicant preliminarily evaluated ex aequo et bono at EUR 7000;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-28/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg te Gent by judgment of that court of 27 January 1999 in the case of Public Prosecutor against J. M. G. H. Verdonck, R. A. A. Everaert and E. M. De Baedts

text:
C 121/8                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       1.5.1999
                    ORDER OF THE COURT                                     Instance, Ghent), received at the Court Registry on 5 Februa-
                                                                           ry 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Public
                        (Fourth Chamber)                                   Prosecutor against J. M. G. H. Verdonck, R. A. A. Everaert and
                                                                           E. M. De Baedts on the following questions:
                       of 11 February 1999
in Case C-313/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                  1. Does Article 6 of Council Directive 89/592/EEC (1) of
the Oberlandesgericht Köln): administrative fine imposed                       13 November 1989 coordinating regulations on insider
                      on Arnold Claasen (1)                                    dealing, which reads as follows: ‘Each Member State may
                                                                               adopt provisions more stringent than those laid down by
(Application for interpretation of an agreement concluded                      this Directive or additional provisions, provided that such
between certain Member States under Article 8 of Directive                     provisions are applied generally ...’ allow a Member State
       93/89/EEC — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)                          to provide for a more stringent definition in its legislation,
                                                                               whilst denying a given category, namely holding compa-
                          (1999/C 121/14)                                      nies, a specific exemption from that more stringent
                                                                               definition.
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                           2. Is the implementation of Directive 89/592/EEC, transposed
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published         in Belgium by Article 181 of the law of 4 December 1990
                   in the European Court Reports)                              on financial transactions and financial markets, compatible
                                                                               with Article 6 of the Directive. Article 181 reads as follows:
In Case C-313/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                  Privileged information, for the application of this code,
the EC Treaty from the Oberlandesgericht Köln (Germany) for                    means information not know to the public which is
a preliminary ruling, in the appeal against an administrative                  sufficiently clear and relates to one or more issuers of
fine brought before that court by Arnold Claasen, on the                       shares or other financial instruments, or to one or more
interpretation of Article 8(1) of the Agreement of 9 February                  shares or other financial instruments, and which, if made
1994 on the levying of charges for the use of certain roads by                 public, may have an appreciable influence on the price of
heavy commercial vehicles, concluded between the Govern-                       such share(s) or of other financial instruments.
ments of the Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of
Belgium, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Grand Duchy of                            Privileged information does not include information avail-
Luxembourg and the Kingdom of the Netherlands (Bundesge-                       able to holding companies by virtue of their role in the
setzblatt 1994, Part II, p. 1768) — the Court (Fourth Chamber),                management of companies which they own in part, unless
composed of P. J. G.Kapteyn (Rapporteur), President of the                     it constitutes information which must be made public
Chamber, J. L. Murray and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; D. Ruiz-                       pursuant to the legislative and regulatory provisions con-
Jarabo Colomer, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has                     cerning the obligations arising from the official listing of
made an order on 11 February 1999, the operative part of                       shares on the stock exchange.
which is as follows:                                                           The provisions of this code shall apply to shares and other
                                                                               financial instruments within the meaning of Article 1.
The Court manifestly lacks jurisdiction to reply to the reference for a
preliminary ruling made by the Oberlandesgericht Köln by order of
4 August 1998.
                                                                           3. If the Member State has implemented Directive
                                                                               89/592/EEC of 13 November 1989 coordinating regu-
(1) OJ C 327, 24.10.1998.                                                      lations on insider dealing, as the Belgian legislature has
                                                                               done in Article 181 of the Law of 4 December 1990 on
                                                                               financial transactions and financial markets, and such
                                                                               implementation is contrary to the Directive, does this
                                                                               mean that the more stringent provisions are deemed not
                                                                               to form part of national legislation, or that they remain
                                                                               fully applicable in the case of holding companies as well?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Rechtbank van
Eerste Aanleg te Gent by judgment of that court of
27 January 1999 in the case of Public Prosecutor against
J. M. G. H. Verdonck, R. A. A. Everaert and E. M. De
                               Baedts
                                                                           (1) OJ L 334, 18.11.1989, p. 30.
                           (Case C-28/99)
                          (1999/C 121/15)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of 27 January 1999 of
the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg te Gent (Court of First


title: Case T-3/08: Order of the General Court of 10 January 2011 — Coedo Suárez v Council

text:
               19.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/34

         Order of the General Court of 10 January 2011 — Coedo Suárez v Council
   (Case T-3/08) (1)

   2011/C 55/61
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 64, 8.3.2008.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 November 1999 in Case C-315/98: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 95/21/EC)

text:
19.2.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 47/3
3. Community law does not preclude a national court from                        the sole ground that he is in a situation referred to in
   determining independently whether the criterion laid down in                 Article 900(1)(o) of Regulation No 2454/93, as amended by
   Article 859(1) of Regulation No 2454/93, namely that the                     Article 1(29) of Regulation No 3254/94.
   time-limit ought to have been extended, is fulfilled where an
   application for an extension made in time has been refused by a         (1) OJ C 137 of 2.5.1998.
   now unappealable decision of the customs authority.
4. (a) Only circumstances liable to put the applicant in an
        exceptional situation in relation to other traders carrying on
        the same activity can justify an extension of the time-limit                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
        referred to in Article 49(1) of Regulation No 2913/92.
        Exceptional circumstances which, although not unknown to                                       (Fifth Chamber)
        the trader, are not events which would normally confront any
        trader in the exercise of his occupation may constitute such                               of 11 November 1999
        circumstances. It is for the customs authorities and the
        national courts to determine in each case whether such             in Case C-315/98: Commission of the European Communi-
        circumstances exist.                                                                      ties v Italian Republic (1)
                                                                           (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                                                                                Directive 95/21/EC)
   (b) Community law does not preclude a trader from lodging a
        single application for an extension of the prescribed time-                                     (2000/C 47/04)
        limit for assigning to goods covered by several summary
        declarations a customs-approved treatment or use. However,
        even in the case of a single application, the time-limit may                             (Language of the case: Italian)
        be extended only in respect of goods in relation to which the
        prescribed time-limit for assigning a customs-approved             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
        treatment or use has not yet expired.                                                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           In Case C-315/98: Commission of the European Communities
                                                                           (Agents: B. Mongin and L. Pignataro) v Italian Republic (Agents:
5. Article 900(1)(o) of Regulation No 2454/93, as amended by               Professor U. Leanza assisted by D. Del Gaizo) — Application
   Article 1(29) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 3254/94 of
                                                                           for a declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
   19 December 1994, applies to cases in which the goods would             and administrative provisions necessary to implement Council
   have been eligible for Community treatment or preferential tariff       Directive 95/21/EC of 19 June 1995 concerning the enforce-
   treatment, but not to cases in which the goods would have been
                                                                           ment, in respect of shipping using Community ports and
   eligible for other forms of favourable treatment.                       sailing in the waters under the jurisdiction of the Member
                                                                           States, of international standards for ship safety, pollution
                                                                           prevention and shipboard living and working conditions (port
6. The customs authority or national court to which an application         State control) (OJ 1995 L 157, p. 1), the Italian Republic has
   is submitted for repayment on the basis of Article 900(1)(o) of         failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive and the EC
   Regulation No 2454/93, as amended by Article 1(29) of                   Treaty, — the Court (Fifth Chamber) composed of D.A.O.
   Regulation No 3254/94, is required, where it is unable to grant         Edward, President of the Chamber, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida,
   the repayment applied for pursuant to that provision, to examine        L. Sevón (Rapporteur), C. Gulmann and J.-P. Puissochet,
   of its own motion the merits of that application in the light of        Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
   the other provisions of Article 900 and Articles 901 to 904 of          given a judgment on 11 November 1999, in which it has
   Regulation No 2454/93. Where the decision-making authority              ruled:
   is not in a position, on the basis of the grounds adduced, to take
                                                                           1. By failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative
   a decision to repay or remit duties on the basis of Article 899 of
                                                                                provisions necessary to implement Council Directive 95/21/EC
   Regulation No 2454/93, it is required to examine of its own
                                                                                of 19 June 1995 concerning the enforcement, in respect of
   motion whether there is any evidence ‘which might constitute a
                                                                                shipping using Community ports and sailing in the waters under
   special situation resulting from circumstances in which no
                                                                                the jurisdiction of the Member States, of international standards
   deception or obvious negligence may be attributed to the person
                                                                                for ship safety, pollution prevention and shipboard living and
   concerned’ within the meaning of Article 905(1) of Regulation
                                                                                working conditions (port State control) within the prescribed
   No 2454/93 which would necessitate examination of the file by
                                                                                period, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
   the Commission.
                                                                                under that directive.
                                                                           2. The Italian Republic is ordered to pay the costs.
7. Where an application is made for the repayment or remission of
   import or export duties, the customs authority or national court        (1) OJ C 327 of 24.10.1998.
   cannot assume that the person concerned has not acted with any
   fraudulent intent or in a manner which is obviously negligent on


title: Case F-80/05: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 June 2009 — De Geest v Council

text:
               15.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/37

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 June 2009 — De Geest v Council
   (Case F-80/05) (1)

   2009/C 193/66

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 281, 12.11.2005, p. 25.


title: Case T-447/13 P: Order of the General Court of 2 October 2014 — Marcuccio v Commisison (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Reimbursement of recoverable costs — Article 92(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal — Availability of a parallel remedy — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

text:
               24.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 421/43

         Order of the General Court of 2 October 2014 — Marcuccio v Commisison
   (Case T-447/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Reimbursement of recoverable costs - Article 92(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal - Availability of a parallel remedy - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded))
   2014/C 421/61
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: initially, C. Berardis-Kayser and J. Banquero Cruz, and subsequently C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Re:

   Appeal against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (single judge) of 18 June 2013 in Case F-143/11 Marcuccio v Commission, ECR-SC, EU:F:2013:81, seeking to have that order set aside.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Luigi Marcuccio is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission in the present case.

      (1)  OJ C 291, 5.10.2013.


title: Case T-379/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 September 2008 — Poland v Commission

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/65

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 September 2008 — Poland v Commission
   (Case T-379/07) (1)

   (2008/C 301/125)

      Language of the case: Polish

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

      (1)  OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.


title: Case C-195/06: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 18 October 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundeskommunikationssenat (Austria)) — Kommunikationsbehörde Austria (KommAustria) v Österreichischer Rundfunk (ORF) (Freedom to provide services — Television broadcasting activities — Directives 89/552/EEC and 97/36/EC — Definition of teleshopping and television advertising — Prize game)

text:
               22.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/15

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 18 October 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundeskommunikationssenat (Austria)) — Kommunikationsbehörde Austria (KommAustria) v Österreichischer Rundfunk (ORF)
   (Case C-195/06) (1)

   (Freedom to provide services - Television broadcasting activities - Directives 89/552/EEC and 97/36/EC - Definition of ‘teleshopping’ and ‘television advertising’ - Prize game)
   (2007/C 315/24)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundeskommunikationssenat
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Kommunikationsbehörde Austria (KommAustria)

      Defendant: Österreichischer Rundfunk (ORF)
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundeskommunikationssenat — Interpretation of Article 1(c) and (f) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by Law, Regulation or Administrative Action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities (OJ 1989 L 298, p. 23), as amended by Directive 97/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997 (OJ 1997 L 202, p. 60) — Television broadcast offering viewers the opportunity to participate in a prize game by means of dialling a special telephone number — Definition of ‘television advertising’ and ‘teleshopping’
   Operative part of the judgment
   On a proper construction of Article 1 of Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by Law, Regulation or Administrative Action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities, as amended by Directive 97/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997, a broadcast or part of a broadcast during which a television broadcaster offers viewers the opportunity to participate in a prize game by means of immediately dialling a premium rate telephone number, and thus in return for payment,

               —

               is covered by the definition given by Article 1(f) of teleshopping if that broadcast or part of a broadcast represents a real offer of services having regard to the purpose of the broadcast of which the game forms part, the significance of the game within the broadcast in terms of time and of anticipated economic effects in relation to those expected in respect of that broadcast as a whole and also to the type of questions which the candidates are asked;

               —

               is covered by the definition given by Article 1(c) of television advertising if, on the basis of the purpose and content of that game and the circumstances in which the prizes to be won are presented, the game consists of an announcement which seeks to encourage viewers to buy the goods and services presented as prizes to be won or seeks to promote the merits of the programmes of the broadcaster in question indirectly in the form of self-promotion.

      (1)  OJ C 243, 1.10.2005.


C 55/42                 EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                     8.3.2003
as the Commission changed the legal assessment of the                       Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-100/02 and
infringements without offering the applicant the possibility of                                        T-102/02 (1)
responding to it during the administrative proceedings.
                                                                                (2003/C 55/100)
( 1) EEC Council: Regulation No 17: First Regulation implementing                              (Language of the Case: English)
     Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty (OJ 13 of 21.2.1962, p. 204).
                                                                            By order of 2 December 2002 the President of the Fifth
                                                                            Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                            Communities ordered the removal from the register of Joined
                                                                            Cases T-100/02 and T-102/02: EVC International N.V. v
                                                                            Commission of the European Communities.
         Removal from the register of Case T-96/01 (1)
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 156 of 29.06.2002.
                           (2003/C 55/98)
                     (Language of the Case: Greek)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-170/02 (1)
By order of 13 December 2002 the President of the Second
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                                               (2003/C 55/101)
Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
T-96/01: Rodolfos Maslias v European Parliament.                                                (Language of the Case: French)
( 1) OJ C 200 of 14.07.2001.
                                                                            By order of 6 December 2002 the President of the Second
                                                                            Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                            Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                            T-170/02: Maria Rosaria Ragazzini v European Parliament.
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 202 of 24.08.2002.
Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-99/02 and
                             T-101/02 ( 1)
                           (2003/C 55/99)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-295/02 ( 1).
                    (Language of the Case: English)
                                                                                (2003/C 55/102)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: Dutch)
By order of 2 December 2002 the President of the Fifth
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities ordered the removal from the register of Joined                 By order of 13 December 2002 the President of the Third
Cases T-99/02 and T-101/02: Ineos N.V. v Commission of the                  Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
European Communities.                                                       Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                            T-295/02: Koninklijke BAM NBM N.V. v Commission of the
( 1) OJ C 156 of 29.06.2002.                                                European Communities.
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 289 of 23.11.2002.


title: Case C-370/12: Judgment of the Court (Full Court) of 27 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — Thomas Pringle v Government of Ireland, Ireland and the Attorney General (Stability mechanism for the Member States whose currency is the euro — Decision 2011/199/EU — Amendment of Article 136 TFEU — Validity — Article 48(6) TEU — Simplified revision procedure — ESM Treaty — Economic and monetary policy — Competence of the Member States)

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/15

         Judgment of the Court (Full Court) of 27 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — Thomas Pringle v Government of Ireland, Ireland and the Attorney General
   (Case C-370/12) (1)

   (Stability mechanism for the Member States whose currency is the euro - Decision 2011/199/EU - Amendment of Article 136 TFEU - Validity - Article 48(6) TEU - Simplified revision procedure - ESM Treaty - Economic and monetary policy - Competence of the Member States)
   2013/C 26/27
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Supreme Court

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Thomas Pringle

      Defendants: Government of Ireland, Ireland and the Attorney General

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Supreme Court — Validity of European Council Decision 2011/199/EU of 25 March 2011 amending Article 136 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union with regard to a stability mechanism for Member States whose currency is the euro (OJ 2011 L 91, p. 1) — Competences of the Union — Right of euro area Member States to conclude an international agreement such as the Treaty establishing the European stability mechanism

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Examination of the first question referred has disclosed nothing capable of affecting the validity of European Council Decision 2011/199/EU of 25 March 2011 amending Article 136 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union with regard to a stability mechanism for Member States whose currency is the euro.

               2.

               Articles 4(3) TEU and 13 TEU, Articles 2(3) TFEU, 3(1)(c) and (2) TFEU, 119 TFEU to 123 TFEU and 125 TFEU to 127 TFEU, and the general principle of effective judicial protection do not preclude the conclusion between the Member States whose currency is the euro of an agreement such as the Treaty establishing the European stability mechanism between the Kingdom of Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Estonia, Ireland, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Republic of Cyprus, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, Malta, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Portuguese Republic, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic and the Republic of Finland, concluded at Brussels on 2 February 2012, or the ratification of that treaty by those Member States.

               3.

               The right of a Member State to conclude and ratify that Treaty is not subject to the entry into force of Decision 2011/199.

      (1)  OJ C 303, 6.10.2012.


title: Joined Cases C-307/09 to C-309/09: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 February 2011 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands)) — Vicoplus SC PUH (C-307/09), BAM Vermeer Contracting sp. zoo (C-308/09), Olbek Industrial Services sp. zoo (C-309/09) v Minister van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid (Freedom to provide services — Posting of workers — 2003 Act of Accession — Transitional measures — Access of Polish nationals to the labour market of States which were already Member States of the European Union at the time of the accession of the Republic of Poland — Requirement of a work permit for the making available of labour — Directive 96/71/EC — Article 1(3))

text:
               2.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/5

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 February 2011 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands)) — Vicoplus SC PUH (C-307/09), BAM Vermeer Contracting sp. zoo (C-308/09), Olbek Industrial Services sp. zoo (C-309/09) v Minister van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid
   (Joined Cases C-307/09 to C-309/09) (1)

   (Freedom to provide services - Posting of workers - 2003 Act of Accession - Transitional measures - Access of Polish nationals to the labour market of States which were already Member States of the European Union at the time of the accession of the Republic of Poland - Requirement of a work permit for the making available of labour - Directive 96/71/EC - Article 1(3))
   2011/C 103/07
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Raad van State

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Vicoplus SC PUH (C-307/09), BAM Vermeer Contracting sp. zoo (C-308/09), Olbek Industrial Services sp. zoo (C-309/09)

      Defendant: Minister van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Raad van State (Netherlands) — Interpretation of Articles 49 EC and 50 EC and of Article 1(3)(c) of Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services (OJ 1997 L 18, p. 1) — National legislation under which a work permit is required for the making available of workers

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Articles 56 TFEU and 57 TFEU do not preclude a Member State from making, during the transitional period provided for in Chapter 2, paragraph 2, of Annex XII to the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded, the hiring-out, within the meaning of Article 1(3)(c) of Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services, on its territory, of workers who are Polish nationals subject to the obtaining of a work permit.

               2.

               The hiring-out of workers, within the meaning of Article 1(3)(c) of Directive 96/71, is a service provided for remuneration in respect of which the worker who has been hired out remains in the employ of the undertaking providing the service, no contract of employment being entered into with the user undertaking. It is characterised by the fact that the movement of the worker to the host Member State constitutes the very purpose of the provision of services effected by the undertaking providing the services and that that worker carries out his tasks under the control and direction of the user undertaking.

      (1)  OJ C 267, 7.11.2009.


title: Case C-401/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Romania) lodged on 16 July 2013 — Vasiliki Balazs v Casa Județeană de Pensii Cluj

text:
               12.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 298/3

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Romania) lodged on 16 July 2013 — Vasiliki Balazs v Casa Județeană de Pensii Cluj
   (Case C-401/13)
   2013/C 298/03
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel Cluj

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant at first instance: Vasiliki Balazs

      Defendant at first instance: Casa Județeană de Pensii Cluj

      Question referred

   Is Article 7(2)(c) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) to be interpreted as including within its scope a bilateral agreement which two Member States entered into before the date on which that regulation became applicable and by which the two states agreed to the termination of obligations relating to social security benefits owed by one state to nationals of the other state who had been political refugees in the territory of the first state and who have been repatriated to the territory of the second state, in exchange for a payment by the first state of a lump sum for the payment of pensions and to cover periods during which social security contributions were paid in the first Member State?

      (1)  Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416).


title: Case T-470/09: Action brought on 30 November 2009 — medi v OHIM (medi)

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/62

         Action brought on 30 November 2009 — medi v OHIM (medi)
   (Case T-470/09)
   2010/C 24/110
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: medi GmbH & Co. KG (Bayreuth, Germany) (represented by H. Lindner und D. Terheggen, lawyers)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 1 October 2009 in Case R 692/2008-4, insofar as the complaint was dismissed;

               —

               annul OHIM’s Decision of 26 February 2008 to refuse Community trade mark application No 5 378 021;

               —

               allow publication in full of Community trade mark application No 5 378 021;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘medi’ for goods and services in Classes 1, 3, 5, 9, 10, 17, 35, 38, 39, 41, 42 and 44 (Application No 5 378 021)

      Decision of the Examiner: Refusal of the application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partial annulment of the Examiner’s Decision

      Pleas in law: Wrong application of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, (1) because the mark concerned does have the distinctive character required

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).


title: Case C-20/11: Action brought on 13 January 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

text:
               12.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/15

         Action brought on 13 January 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-20/11)
   2011/C 80/29
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: I. Hadjiyiannis and Ł. Habiak, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by not adopting all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on the assessment and management of flood risks, (1) and in any event by not informing the Commission of such provisions, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 17(1) of that directive;

               —

               order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The time-limit for transposition of Directive 2007/60 expired on 26 November 2009.

      (1)  OJ 2007 L 288, p. 27.


title: Case T-210/05: Action brought on 19 May 2005 by Nalocebar — Consultores e Serviços Lda. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               23.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/42

         Action brought on 19 May 2005 by Nalocebar — Consultores e Serviços Lda. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case T-210/05)
   (2005/C 182/79)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 19 May 2005 by Nalocebar — Consultores e Serviços Lda., established in Funchal (Madeira), represented by G. Pasquarella and R. M. Pasquarella, lawyers.
   Limiñana y Botella, S. L. established in Monforte del Cid, Alicante (Spain) was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               quash the Decision of 18 March 2005 of the First Board of Appeal of the OHIM in case no. R 646/2004-1 by upholding the lawfulness of the figurative mark filed on 12 July 2000 by the applicants and published in the Community Trademark Bulletin no. 103/01 on 03.12.01;

               —

               award the statutory costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

               Applicant for Community trade mark:

               Big Ben Establishment Ltd. The applicant in this case is the purchaser of the application for registration filed by Big Ben Establishment

               Community trade mark concerned:

               Figurative mark ‘Limoncello di Capri’ for goods in classes 30 (pastries etc.), 32 (syrups and other lemon based drinks belonging to class 32) and 33 (lemon based liqueurs)

               Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

               Limiñana y Botella S.L.

               Trade mark or sign cited in opposition:

               Spanish word mark LIMONCHELO for goods in class 33

               Decision of the Opposition Division:

               Refuses registration

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Rejects the appeal

               Pleas in law:

               Violation of Article 8 (1) (b) of Council Regulation No. 40/94 (1).

      (1)  OJ L 011, 14/01/1994, p. 1