title: Judgment of the Court 14 May 2002 in Case C-2/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf): Michael Hölterhoff v Ulrich Freiesleben (Approximation of laws — Trade marks — Directive 89/104/EEC — Article 5(1) — Scope of the proprietor's exclusive right to the trade mark — Third party — Use of the trade mark for descriptive purposes)

text:
C 169/6                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                            13.7.2002
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
                                                                            court between Michael Hölterhoff and Ulrich Freiesleben on
                          (Fifth Chamber)                                   the interpretation of Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of First Council
                                                                            Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate
                            30 May 2002                                     the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989
                                                                            L 40, p. 1), the Court, composed of: P. Jann, President of the
in Case C-516/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                   Fifth Chamber, acting for the President, F. Macken, N. Colneric
the Berufungssenat V der Finanzlandesdirektion für Wien,                    and S. von Bahr (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann
   Niederösterreich und Burgenland): Walter Schmid (1)                      (Rapporteur), A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet and
(Concept of ‘court or tribunal of a Member State’ within the                V. Skouris, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; H. von
meaning of Article 234 EC — Lack of jurisdiction of the                     Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 May
                          Court of Justice)                                 2002, in which it has ruled:
                          (2002/C 169/08)                                   Article 5(1) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December
                                                                            1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to
                   (Language of the case: German)                           trade marks is to be interpreted as meaning that the proprietor of a
                                                                            trade mark cannot rely on his exclusive right where a third party, in
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      the course of commercial negotiations, reveals the origin of goods
                   in the European Court Reports)                           which he has produced himself and uses the sign in question solely to
                                                                            denote the particular characteristics of the goods he is offering for sale
In Case C-516/99: Reference to the Court under Article 234                  so that there can be no question of the trade mark used being
EC by the Berufungssenat V der Finanzlandesdirektion für                    perceived as a sign indicative of the undertaking of origin.
Wien, Niederösterreich und Burgenland (Austria) for a prelimi-
nary ruling in the proceedings brought by Walter Schmid, on                 (1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.
the interpretation of Articles 73b and 73d of the EC Treaty
(now Articles 56 EC and 58 EC), the Court (Fifth Chamber),
composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber, S. von Bahr,
D.A.O. Edward, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur) and C.W.A. Tim-
mermans, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 30 May 2002, in which it
has ruled:
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
The Court of Justice of the European Communities has no jurisdiction
to answer the questions referred by the Berufungssenat V der                                          (Sixth Chamber)
Finanzlandesdirektion für Wien, Niederösterreich und Burgenland,
by order of 2 December 1999.
                                                                                16 May 2002
(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.
                                                                            in Case C-63/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                            the Bundesverwaltungsgericht): Land Baden-Württem-
                                                                            berg and Günther Schilling, participant: Oberbundesan-
                                                                            walt beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht, v Bezirksregierung
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      Lüneburg and Hans-Otto Nehring, participant: Oberbun-
                                                                                desanwalt beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht (1)
                            14 May 2002
                                                                            (Common agricultural policy — Regulation (EEC) No 3887/
in Case C-2/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                     92 — Integrated administration and control system for
the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf): Michael Hölterhoff v                     certain Community aid schemes — Implementing rules —
                       Ulrich Freiesleben (1)                               Application for ‘livestock’ aid — Checks on animals —
                                                                                Reduction of the amount of aid)
(Approximation of laws — Trade marks — Directive 89/
104/EEC — Article 5(1) — Scope of the proprietor’s
exclusive right to the trade mark — Third party — Use of                                               (2002/C 169/10)
            the trade mark for descriptive purposes)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                          (2002/C 169/09)
                   (Language of the case: German)                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                            In Case C-63/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
In Case C-2/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC                 by the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) for a preliminary
by the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) for a                         ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between


title: Case T-248/14: Action brought on 14 April 2014 — Masafi v OHIM — Hd1 (masafi juice)

text:
               21.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/23

         Action brought on 14 April 2014 — Masafi v OHIM — Hd1 (masafi juice)
   (Case T-248/14)
   2014/C 235/31
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Masafi Co. LLC (Dubai, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: G. Hinarejos Mulliez, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hd1 Ltd (Huddersfield, United Kingdom)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 February 2014 given in Case R 119/2013-4;

               —

               Order the other party to the proceedings, should it intervene, to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark in black and white containing the verbal element ‘masafi’ for goods in class 32

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: The United Kingdom trade mark registration No 2 5 51  560 for the word ‘masafi’

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(a), (b) and 8(5) CTMR


title: Case T-224/00: Action brought on 25 August 2000 by Archer Daniels Midland Company and Archer Daniels Midland Ingredients Limited against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 316/32                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       4.11.2000
The applicant states that the decision is of direct and individual        This decision has imposed a fine to the applicants, after having
concern to it in its capacity as a competitor of the recipient            considered they have infringed Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty
undertakings in the European market for the production and                and Article 53(1) of the EEA Agreement by participating in
assembly of parking systems for motor vehicles. It claims that            agreements on prices, sales volumes and the exchange of
the decision in issue infringes its entitlement to a fair hearing,        individual information on sales volumes of synthetic lysing.
which can be safeguarded only by the opening of the main
examination procedure. The Commission unlawfully omitted
to investigate, by way of the main examination procedure, the             The applicants does not contest the factual background of the
                                                                          case. Instead, in support of its conclusions, they submit the
grounds on which a distortion of competition is alleged by
                                                                          following pleas on law:
the applicant in its complaint. The Commission based its
assessment on incorrect information contained in an expert’s
report. Lastly, it incorrectly defined the market concerned and           —     The Commission’s imposition of the fine in question, that
incorrectly assessed the number of competitors.                                 is calculated on the basis of a new ‘Fines Guidelines’ (1),
                                                                                infringes the principles of legal certainty and of legitimate
                                                                                expectations.
                                                                          —     Specifically, when imposing the fine, the Commission
                                                                                applied the Fines Guidelines retroactively, in opposition
                                                                                to statements made and correspondence provided by the
                                                                                Commission staff as part of the discussions leading to
                                                                                Kyowa’s cooperations pursuant to the Commission
Action brought on 25 August 2000 by Kyowa Hakko                                 Notice on the non-imposition or reduction of fines in
Kogyo Company Ltd and Kyowa Hakko Europe GmbH                                   cartel case (2).
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                          —     In addition and in the alternative, the Commission has
                                                                                violated the principle of proportionality by imposing a
                         (Case T-223/00)                                        fine that takes into account Kyowa’s worldwide activities,
                                                                                and not the fact that only a small percentage of its
                         (2000/C 316/61)                                        worldwide turnover was generated in what is to be
                                                                                considered as the relevant market in the present case, i.e.
                                                                                the EEA.
                    (Language of the case: English)                       —     In the base fine calculation the Commission has unduly
                                                                                refused to take into account the substantial fines already
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                       imposed on the Applicants by the US authorities.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 25 August 2000 by Kyowa Hakko
Kogyo Company Ltd and Kyowa Hakko Europe GmbH,                            (1) Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to
                                                                              Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 Article 65(5) of the ECSC
represented by Dr Cornelis Canenbley and Dr Kay Diedrich of                   Treaty (OJ C 9, of 14.1.1998, p. 3).
Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, Brussels.                                 (2) OJ C 207, of 18.7.1996, p. 4.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul Commission Decision No. C (2000) 1565 final of
      7 June 2000 in relation to the fine imposed or reduce the
      fine imposed upon the applicant as per the Court’s
      discretion;
                                                                          Action brought on 25 August 2000 by Archer Daniels
—     order the Commission to bear the costs of these proceed-            Midland Company and Archer Daniels Midland Ingredi-
      ings.                                                               ents Limited against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                     (Case T-224/00)
The applicants in the present case, a Company established                                           (2000/C 316/62)
under Japanese Law, and its European subsidiary, are involved,
inter alia, in animal health products. In relation to amino acids,
Kyowa Hakko currently has production facilities in Japan,                                     (Language of the case: English)
Hungary, Mexico and the USA. They seek the annulment of
Article 2 of the Commission decision dated 7 June 2000 —
C(2000) 1565 final, concerning a procedure under Article 81               An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
of the EC Treaty (Case Comp/36.545/F3 — Amino Acids).                     ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
 ---pagebreak--- 4.11.2000               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 316/33
European Communities on 25 August 2000 by Archer Daniels                 Action brought on 28 August 2000 by Nan Ya Plastics
Midland Company and Archer Daniels Midland Ingredients                    Corporation against the Council of the European Union
Limited, represented by Lynda Martin Alegi and Edward
William Batchelor of Baker and McKenzie, London.                                                 (Case T-226/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 316/63)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—      annul Article 2 of the Commission Decision of 7 June                                (Language of the case: English)
       2000 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of
       the EEC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case          An action against the Council of the European Union was
       COMP/36.545/F3-Amino Acids) insofar as it pertains to             brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
       ADM;                                                              Communities on 28 August 2000 by Nan Ya Plastics Corpor-
                                                                         ation, represented by Philippe De Baere, of Van Bael & Bellis,
                                                                         Brussels.
—      in the alternative, the modification of Article 2 of the
       decision as it pertains to ADM, so as to annul or
       substantially reduce the fine imposed on ADM therein;             The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         —     annul Articles 1 and 2 of Council Regulation (EC)
—      order the Commission to pay all the costs of the                        No 978/2000 to the extent that they affect the applicant;
       proceedings; and                                                        and
                                                                         —     order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
—      order the Commission to reimburse ADM for any
       expenses incurred in providing security for payment of
       the fine.                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         The contested measure in the present case is Council Regu-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          lation (EC) No 978/2000 imposing a definitive countervailing
                                                                         duty on imports of polyester originating in Australia, Indonesia
                                                                         and Taiwan and collecting definitively the provisional duty
                                                                         imposed (1).
The grounds and main arguments are similar to those invoked
in cases T-220/00 et T-223/00 Cheil Jedang Corporation/Com-
mission and T-223/00 Kyowa Hakko Kogyo and Kyowa Hakko                   The product concerned is synthetic staple fibres of polyester,
Europe/Commission.                                                       not carded, combed or otherwise processed for spinning,
                                                                         which is currently classified under CN code 5503 20 00.
It is submitted, in particular, that the Commission:                     The applicant, a company incorporated in Taiwan producing
                                                                         a wide range of artificial fibres, plastics and petrochemical
                                                                         intermediates, puts forward the following submissions:
—      Has incorrectly characterised the infringement as a very
       serious infringement likely to jeopardise the proper              —     The Council unlawfully countervailed the import duty
       functioning of the single market.                                       exemption for raw materials since this scheme could
                                                                               not lawfully have been included in the scope of the
                                                                               investigation.
—      Failed to take into account the lack of actual impact of
       the Cartel in assessing the fine.                                 —     The Council’s conclusion that the benefits obtained under
                                                                               the tax credit for investment in important undertakings,
—      Improperly assesses that the applicants implemented the                 the import-duty exemption for machinery and anti-
       agreements.                                                             pollution equipment, the import-duty exemptions for raw
                                                                               materials and the tax credit for purchase of automation
                                                                               equipment are countervalable is based on an erroneus
—      Improperly assesses the applicants to be sector leaders                 application of Article 3(2) of the basic anti-subsidy regu-
       and increased the fine excessively in respect of leadership.            lation and is made in the absence of positive evidence
                                                                               and thereby infringes Articles 3(1), 4(1) and 3(5) of that
                                                                               regulation.
—      Has infringed essential procedural requirements.
                                                                         (1) OJ L 113 of 12.5.2000, p. 1.


title: Case C-129/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Szolnoki Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Túrkevei Tejtermelő Kft. v Országos Környezetvédelmi és Természetvédelmi Főfelügyelőség (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Articles 191 and 193 TFEU — Directive 2004/35/EC — Applicability ratione materiae — Air pollution caused by illegal waste incineration — Polluter-pays principle — National legislation establishing joint liability between the owner of the land on which the pollution occurred and the polluter)

text:
               4.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 293/6

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Szolnoki Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Túrkevei Tejtermelő Kft. v Országos Környezetvédelmi és Természetvédelmi Főfelügyelőség
   (Case C-129/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Articles 191 and 193 TFEU - Directive 2004/35/EC - Applicability ratione materiae - Air pollution caused by illegal waste incineration - Polluter-pays principle - National legislation establishing joint liability between the owner of the land on which the pollution occurred and the polluter))
   (2017/C 293/08)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Szolnoki Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Túrkevei Tejtermelő Kft.

      Defendant: Országos Környezetvédelmi és Természetvédelmi Főfelügyelőség

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The provisions of Directive 2004/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage, read in the light of Articles 191 and 193 TFEU, must be interpreted as meaning that, to the extent that the situation in the main proceedings comes within the scope of Directive 2004/35 — this being a matter for the referring court to determine — such provisions do not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which identifies another category of persons who, in addition to those using the land on which unlawful pollution was produced, share joint liability for the environmental damage, namely the owners of that land, without it being necessary to establish a causal link between the conduct of the owners and the damage established, provided that such legislation complies with the general principles of EU law, all relevant provisions of the EU and FEU Treaties and of the acts of secondary law of the European Union.

               2.

               Article 16 of Directive 2004/35 and Article 193 TFEU must be interpreted, to the extent that the situation at issue in the main proceedings comes within the scope of Directive 2004/35, as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, pursuant to which the owners of land on which unlawful pollution has been produced are not only held to be jointly liable, alongside the persons using that land, for such environmental damage, but may also have fines imposed on them by the competent national authority, provided that such legislation is appropriate for the purpose of contributing to the attainment of the objective of more stringent protection and that the methods for determining the amount of the fine do not go beyond what is necessary to attain that objective, this being a matter for the national court to establish.

      (1)  OJ C 211, 13.6.2016.


title: Case T-59/01: Action brought on 13 March 2001 by Albert Nardone against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
16.6.2001               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 173/33
                                                          COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
                        of 30 January 2001                                 —     annul the express decision of the appointing authority of
                                                                                15 December 2000, in so far as that decision rejects the
in Case T-49/00: Industria Pugliese Olive in Salamoia Erbe                       applicant’s request of 23 May 2000 for the grant of
Aromatiche Snc (Iposea) v Commission of the European                             an invalidity pension in accordance with the second
                          Communities (1)                                        paragraph of Article 78 of the Staff Regulations of
                                                                                officials;
(Common Customs Tariff — Regulation amending the
                                                                           —     order the grant of an invalidity pension calculated in
combined nomenclature — Action for annulment — Inad-
                                                                                accordance with the second paragraph of Article 78 of
                             missibility)
                                                                                the Staff Regulations of officials;
                          (2001/C 173/59)                                  —     alternatively, order, by interim judgment, the setting-up
                                                                                of an invalidity committee as provided for in Article 53
                                                                                of the Staff Regulations of officials, with the task of
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                examining whether the applicant is suffering from total
                                                                                permanent invalidity within the meaning of Article 78 of
In Case T-49/00: Industria Pugliese Olive in Salamoia Erbe                       the Staff Regulations of officials;
Aromatiche Snc (Iposea), established at Cerignola (Italy),
represented by A. Guarino, of the Rome Bar, and A. Lorang,                 —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
of the Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the latter’s Chambers, 2 Rue des Dahlias, v
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Schie-
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
ferer and M. Moretto) — application for annulment of
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2626/1999 of 13 December
1999 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC)                          The applicant entered the service of the Communities in
No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on               Luxembourg in 1963. Upon being transferred to the Com-
the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1999 L 321, p. 3) — the                      mission in Brussels in 1970, he was assigned to work in the
Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of:                     Berlaymont building. According to the applicant, the working
A.W.H. Meij, President, and A. Potocki and J. Pirrung, Judges;             conditions in the workshops at first basement level and
H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 30 January 2001, the                  mezzanine level in that building were insalubrious and charac-
operative part of which is as follows:                                     terised by a dusty atmosphere, caused by asbestos dust
                                                                           discovered at a later date.
1.    The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
                                                                           In October 1981 the applicant decided to submit his resig-
2.    The applicant is to pay the costs.
                                                                           nation. Following his resignation, the applicant’s physical state
                                                                           was such that he could not perform any occupational activities
(1) OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000.                                                 whatsoever.
                                                                           In November 1999 the applicant, who had previously brought
                                                                           proceedings seeking official recognition of his occupational
                                                                           disease and compensation for the damage which he alleges to
                                                                           have suffered, submitted a request under Article 90 of the Staff
                                                                           Regulations seeking the grant of an invalidity pension pursuant
Action brought on 13 March 2001 by Albert Nardone                          to Article 78 of the Staff Regulations. The Commission refused
  against the Commission of the European Communities                       that request, taking the view that it was not the applicant’s
                                                                           invalidity which had caused him to cease working for the
                           (Case T-59/01)                                  Communities.
                          (2001/C 173/60)                                  The applicant claims that the Commission committed an abuse
                                                                           of process when adopting a decision which should have been
                                                                           taken by an invalidity committee in accordance with the Staff
                    (Language of the case: French)                         Regulations, and pleads that the Commission was under a duty
                                                                           to afford assistance and that he was entitled to the benefit of
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  working conditions which respect the health, safety and dignity
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                 of the employee, as well as the right to proper administration.
European Communities on 13 March 2001 by Albert Nardone,
residing at Piétrain (Belgium), represented by Juan Ramon
Iturriagagoitia Bassas, avocat.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Münster by order of that court of 28 July 1997 in the case of Eurowings Luftverkehrs AG v. Finanzamt Dortmund-Unna (Case C-294/97)

text:
27 . 9 . 97                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 295/25
               and if the latter, what amount or degree                    Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
               of contribution amounts to a 'significant                   Genova by order of 29 July 1997 in the case of Industrie
               contribution' for these purposes; or                        Aeronautiche e Meccaniche Rinaldo Piaggio v.
                                                                           ( 1 ) International Factors Italia SpA — Uhi 1ALIA;
       ( ii ) only where the discharge of nitrogen compounds               (2 ) Dornier Luftfahrt GmbH (Wessling — Germany); and
               from agricultural sources itself accounts for a                                 (3 ) Ministero della Difesa
               concentration of nitrates in those waters in excess                                   ( Case C-295/97)
               of 50 mg/1 ( i.e. leaving out of account any
               contribution from other sources); or                                                      97/C 295/44 )
       ( iii ) on some other basis and, if so, what basis ?                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                           European Communities by order of 29 July 1997 from the
2. If Question 1 is answered otherwise than in sense ( ii )                Tribunale di Genova ( District Court, Genoa), Sixth Civil
       above, is the Nitrates Directive invalid (to the extent             Chamber, which was received at the Court Registry on
       of its application to surface freshwaters ) on the                  11 August 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
       grounds that it infringes:                                          Industrie Aeronautiche e Meccaniche Rinaldo Piaggio v.
                                                                           ( 1 ) International Factors Italia SpA — IFITALIA;
                                                                           (2 ) Dornier Luftfahrt GmbH (Wessling — Germany); and
       (i)     the principle that the polluter should pay; and/or          ( 3 ) Ministero della Difesa on the following questions:
       ( ii ) the principle of proportionality; and/or
                                                                           1 . Can a national court request the Court of Justice of
                                                                                the European Communities to rule directly on whether
       (iii ) the fundamental property rights of those owning                    a legislative provision of a Member State is compatible
               and/or farming land draining into surface
                                                                                with the provisions of Article 92 of the Treaty ( State
               freshwaters required to be identified under                       aid)?
               Article 3 ( 1 ), being areas of land which are then
               designated by Member States as vulnerable zones
               under Article 3 ( 2 )?                                      2 . If the answer is in the affirmative: can it be argued
                                                                                that, by Law No 26 of 3 April 1979 establishing
(•) OJ L 375 , 31 . 12 . 1991 , p. 1 .                                           a special administration procedure for large
( 2 ) Council Directive of 16 June 1975 concerning the quality                   undertakings in a state of crisis, and in particular by
      required of surface water intended for the abstraction of                  the provisions of that Law set out in the grounds of
      drinking water in the Member States ( OJ L 194, 25 . 7. 1995,              the present order, the Italian State has granted to such
      p. 26 ).                                                                   undertakings as are covered by that Law (that is to
                                                                                say, large undertakings ) aid contrary to Article 92 of
                                                                                the Treaty ?
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht
Munster by order of that court of 28 July 1997 in the case
of Eurowings Luftverkehrs AG v. Finanzamt Dortmund                                   Removal from the register of C-407/95 (*)
                                     Unna
                                                                                97/C 295/45 )
                              ( Case C-294/97
                                ( 97/C 295/43 )                             By order of 13 May 1997 the President of the Court of
                                                                           Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
                                                                            removal from the register of Case C-407/95: Kingdom of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      Belgium v. Commission of the European Communities,
European Communities by an order of the Finanzgericht                       supported by French Republic and United Kingdom of
 (Finance Court), Munster (Ninth Chamber), of 28 July                       Great Britain and Northern Ireland .
 1997, which was received at the Court Registry on
 11 August 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of                    O OJ C 46, 17. 2 . 1996 .
Eurowings Luftverkehrs AG v. Finanzamt (Tax Office),
Dortmund-Unna, on the following question:
 Are the 'add-back' provisions in the second sentence of
 paragraph 8 ( 7) and the second sentence of paragraph 12
 (2 ) (2 ) of the Gewerbesteuergesetz ( Business Tax Law)                              Removal from the register of C-58/96 (')
 compatible with the principle of freedom to provide
 services under Article 59 of the Treaty on European Union                                              ( 97/C 295/46 )
 of 7 February 1992 ?
                                                                            By order of 13 May 1997 the President of the Court of
                                                                            Justice of the European Communities has ordered the


title: Case C-444/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 21 July 2017 — Préfet des Pyrénées-Orientales v Abdelaziz Arib, Procureur de la République près le tribunal de grande instance de Montpellier, Procureur général près la cour d’appel de Montpellier

text:
               2.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 330/7

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 21 July 2017 — Préfet des Pyrénées-Orientales v Abdelaziz Arib, Procureur de la République près le tribunal de grande instance de Montpellier, Procureur général près la cour d’appel de Montpellier
   (Case C-444/17)
   (2017/C 330/09)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de cassation

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Préfet des Pyrénées-Orientales

      Respondents: Abdelaziz Arib, Procureur de la République près le tribunal de grande instance de Montpellier, Procureur général près la cour d’appel de Montpellier

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 32 of Regulation (EU) No 2016/399 (1) of 9 March 2016, which provides that, when border control at internal borders is reintroduced, the relevant provisions of Title II (relating to external borders) are to apply mutatis mutandis, to be interpreted to the effect that border controls reintroduced at an internal border of a Member State may be equated with border controls at an external border, when that border is crossed by a third-country national who has no right of entry?

               2.

               In the same circumstances of reintroduction of controls at internal borders, do that regulation and Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally (2) staying third-country nationals permit the application to the situation of a third-country national crossing a border at which controls have been reintroduced of the power, conferred on them by Article 2(2)(a) of the directive, to continue to apply simplified national return procedures at their external borders?

               3.

               If the answer to the previous question should be affirmative, do the provisions of Article 2(2)(a) and of Article 4(4) of the directive preclude national legislation such as Article L.621-2 Ceseda, which penalises with a term of imprisonment the illegal entry into national territory of a third-country national in respect of whom the return procedure established by that directive has not yet been completed?

      (1)  Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code), (OJ 2016 L 77, p. 1).

      (2)  OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98.


title: Case T-274/10: Action brought on 22 June 2010 — Suez Environnement and Lyonnaise des eaux France v Commission

text:
               28.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 234/43

         Action brought on 22 June 2010 — Suez Environnement and Lyonnaise des eaux France v Commission
   (Case T-274/10)
   ()
   2010/C 234/78
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Suez Environnement Company (Paris, France) and Lyonnaise des eaux France (Paris) (represented by: P. Zelenko and O. d'Ormesson, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the contested inspection decision and/or the inspection mandate of 6 April 2010;

               —

               Annul any action undertaken originating from the inspections carried out on the basis of that unlawful decision and that unlawful mandate;

               —

               Order, in particular, the return of all of the documents seized in the course of the inspections carried out, failing which, the Commission will have its future decision on the substance annulled by the Court, and

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In the present case, the applicants seek annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 1984/4 of 23 March 2010 requiring Suez Environnement and all of the undertakings which it controls, including Lyonnaise des eaux France, to submit to an inspection pursuant to Article 20(4) of Council Regulation No 1/2003, taken in the context of a proceeding pursuant to Article 101 TFEU concerning the markets for the provision of water and sanitation services. (1)

   In support of their actions, the applicants raise three pleas in law alleging:

               —

               an infringement of fundamental rights and freedoms and in particular of the right to respect for the home since the applicants were not notified of any national judicial authorisation, thus depriving them of any fundamental guarantee such as access to a judge while the investigations were being carried out and the possibility of pursuing the ordinary avenues of legal redress against such an authorisation;

               —

               an infringement of the principle of proportionality since the validity of the inspection decision was unlimited in duration and had a very broad scope;

               —

               that the inspection mandate accompanying the inspection decision does not provide sufficient guarantees of impartiality and objectivity, in so far as the Commission's agents which previously examined the confidential information which the applicant Lyonnaise des eaux France sent to the Commission in the context of a notification of a concentration are designated in that mandate.

      (1)  Case COMP/B-1/39.756.


7.2.2004              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                       C 35/19
Removal from the register of Cases T-7/95 and T-22/95 (1)                        Removal from the register of Case T-349/02 (1)
                         (2004/C 35/31)                                                            (2004/C 35/34)
                  (Language of the Case: German)                                             (Language of the Case: Italian)
By order of 9 October 2003 the President of the First Chamber
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                By order of 10 November 2003 the President of the Second
ordered the removal from the register of Case T-7/95: Josef               Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Lang v Council of the European Union and Commission of                    Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
the European Communities; and of Case T-22/95: Therese                    T-349/02: Società Sephora v Office for Harmonisation in the
Schweiger v Council of the European Union and Commission                  Internal Market (Trade Marks and Design) (OHIM).
of the European Communities.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 19 of 25.01.2003.
(1) OJ C 74 of 23.3.1995.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-65/03 (1)
Partial removal from the register of Joined Cases T-306/
                      01 and T-315/01 (1)
                                                                                (2004/C 35/35)
                         (2004/C 35/32)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: French)
           (Languages of the Cases: Swedish and English)
                                                                          By order of 11 November 2003 the President of the Fourth
By order of 9 October 2003 the President of the Second                    Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance             Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the                  T-65/03: Fondation Alsace v Commission of the European
register of the names of the appellants Abdirisak Aden and                Communities.
Abdi Abdulaziz Ali from the names of the appellants in the
Joined Cases T-306/01 and T-315/01: Abdirisak Aden and
Others v Commission of the European Communities.                          (1) OJ C 101 of 26.04.2003.
(1) OJ C 44 of 16.02.2002 and OJ C 56 of 02.03.2002.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-121/03 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case T-141/02 (1)                                              (2004/C 35/36)
                         (2004/C 35/33)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: English)
                  (Language of the Case: English)
                                                                          By order of 21 October 2003 the President of the Second
By order of 20 October 2003 the President of the First                    Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                    of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case                 register of Case T-121/03: Greenpeace Limited and Nexgen
T-141/02: Vetoquinol AG v Office for Harmonisation in the                 Group Limited (trading as ECOTRICITY) v Commission of the
Internal Market.                                                          European Communities.
(1) OJ C 169 of 13.07.2002.                                               (1) OJ C 184 of 02.08.2003.


title: Action brought on 20 January 1995 by BP Chemicals Limited against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-11/95)

text:
8 . 4 . 95             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 87/ 13
pursuant to Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/32.031 —                  Jean-Marc Florand, of the Paris Bar v. Commission of the
Auditel ) (2) — the Court of First Instance (Enlarged Fourth          European Communities (Agents: G. Marenco and W. Wils )
Chamber ), composed of K. Lenaerts, President, and R.                 — application for ( 1 ) suspension of operation of the
Schintgen, C. P. Briet, R. Garcfa-Valdecasas, H. Kirschner            decisions said to be contained in the Commission's letters of
and C. W. Bellamy, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an                20 September, 5 October and 26 October 1994 in which it
order on 6 February 1995 , the operative part of which is as          rejected the applicant's complaint concerning alleged
follows:                                                              anti-competitive practices by various undertakings said to
                                                                      have caused an increase in the tenancy costs borne by the
1 . leave is granted to D & B Marketing Information                   residents of Square d'Auvergne and ( 2 ) an order that the
     Services to intervene in support of the form of order            Community pay the applicant an advance of ECU 150 000
     sought be the defendant;                                         in respect of irrecoverable costs vexatiously caused on
                                                                      account of the costs to be awarded in the main proceedings
2. the request for confidential treatment in relation to the          — the President of the Court of First Instance has made an
     intervener is granted as regards the whole of Annex 20           order on 16 February 1995 , in which:
     to the application and to the following extent as regards
     Annex I to the application:                                      1 . the application for interim measures is dismissed;
     — the notification (form A/B and the Annex thereto)
         will be disclosed to the intervener with the exception       2 . the costs are reserved.
          of those items which have been obscured in the
          version of that document appended to this order,
     — Annexes 1,2,4 and 5 to the notification will not be
          disclosed to the intervener,
     — the request for confidential treatment is rejected as
          regards the remainder, namely Annexes 3 and 6 to            Action brought on 20 January 1995 by BP Chemicals
          the notification;                                           Limited against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
3 . the registrar shall serve a non-confidential version of the                               (Case T-ll/95 )
     documents in the case on the intervener;
                                                                                ( 95/C 87/30 )
4. a period shall be prescribed within which the intervener
     must set out in writing its pleas in support ofthe form of                       (Language of the case: English)
     order which it seeks;
5 . D 8>cB 's request to derogate from the rules on the use of        An action against the Commission of the European
     languages is rejected as regards the written                     Communities was brought before the Court of First
     procedure;                                                       Instance of the European Communities on 20 January 1995
                                                                      by BP Chemicals Limited, represented by J. E. Flynn,
                                                                      Solicitor of Linklaters & Paines, Brussels, with an address
6 . D 8c B is granted leave to use English during the oral            for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch &
     procedure;                                                       Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe.
7. the costs are reserved.
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
(!) OJ No C 90, 26 . 3 . 1994 .
(2 ) OJ No L 306, 11 . 12 . 1993 , p . 50.                            (a ) annul the decision of the Commission under the EC
                                                                            Treaty's State aid rules concerning three capital
                                                                            injections to Enichem SpA ( 1 ); and
                                                                      ( b ) order the Commission to pay the costs of this
                ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT                                      action.
           OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                      of 16 February 1995                             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
in Case T-5/95 R: Amicale des Résidents du Square
d'Auvergne v. Commission of the European                              The applicant maintains that the contested decision should
                          Communities
                                                                      be annulled on substantive and procedural grounds and that
                           ( 95/C 87/29                               its reasoning is inadequate. Specifically, it considers that the
                                                                      Commission erred :
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                      — in finding the first two injections compatible with the
In Case T-5/95 R: Amicale des Résidents du Square                          common market, thereby committing a manifest error of
d'Auvergne, established at Massy, France, represented by                   assessment going beyond the scope of its discretion
 ---pagebreak---  No C 87/14            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      8 . 4 . 95
     under Article 92 ( 3 ) (c), and acting in a manner              — annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision of the
     inconsistent with its own guidelines on restructuring of             Commission of 19 October 1994 expressly rejecting his
     firms in difficulty,                                                 complaint,
— in holding, contrary to Article 92 ( 1 ), that the third           — order the Commission to pay the costs .
    injection did not constitute State aid, through a
    misapplication of the 'private investor' criterion in a
    manner which is inconsistent with its own guidelines and         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    with the behaviour of a true private investor, Union
    Carbide Corporation,                                             The applicant, an official of the Commission in the LA
                                                                     career bracket, contests the decision of the appointing
                                                                     authority classifying him in grade LA 5 , step 1 , in
— in failing to open Article 93 (2 ) proceedings in respect of       consequence of his reinstatement on 1 April 1994 in his
    the third injection, thereby depriving the parties               original service following his secondment, at his own
    concerned of their procedural guarantees under                   request, to the European Centre for the Development of
    Article 93 (2 ) and ( 3 ) as interpreted in the Court's          Vocational Training ( Cedefop ) for a period of seven
    consistent case-law,                                             years .
— in failing to verify and monitor the information and               He points out in that regard that, during that secondment
    proposals put to it by the Italian authorities, thereby          period, he passed a competition held with a view to the
    failing to apply the 'private investor' test correctly and to    drawing up of a reserve list of principal translators/revisers
    ensure that alleged capacity closures had been or would          appointed to grade LA 5 , step 1 , as at 1 October 1990 .
    be made permanent and were of sufficient scale to be in          Consequently, his reinstatement in grade LA 5, step 1 , failed
    the Community interest.                                          to take account, as regards seniority in step, of the period
                                                                     during which he worked at Cedefop .
(!) OJ No C 151 , 2 . 6 . 1994 , p. 3 .                              He asserts in particular that there has been an infringement
                                                                     of the provisions of the Staff Regulations relating to
                                                                     secondment and, more especially, of Article 37 of the Staff
                                                                     Regulations, inasmuch as that Article provides that an
                                                                     official on secondment is to continue to enjoy all his rights
                                                                     under the conditions contained in Articles 38 and 39 . He
                                                                     states in that regard that Article 39 of the Staff Regulations,
                                                                     which governs the secondment of an official at his own
                                                                     request, contains no specific rules as to his right to
                                                                     advancement and his eligibility for promotion. Since that
Action brought on 2 February 1995 by Nuno Do Paqo                   Article constitutes a provision derogating from the ordinary
Quesado against the Commission of the European                       rules, it must be strictly interpreted.
                           Communities
                          (Case T-15/95 )                            It follows that, since officials who are seconded at their own
                           (95/C 87/31 )                             request are not expressly excluded by that provision, they
                                                                    must continue to enjoy the right to automatic advancement
                                                                     in step. To apply any contrary interpretation would be to
                (Language of the case: French)                       disregard the principle of 'career continuity'.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 2 February 1995
by Nuno Do Vaqo Quesado, residing in Trier ( Germany),
represented by Jean-Noel Louis and Veronique Leclercq, of
the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg         Action brought on 7 February 1995 by SA Adia Interim
at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 1 Rue Glesener.               against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-19/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 87/32 )
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
— annul the decision of the Commission of 1 March 1994
    inasmuch as it classifies the applicant in grade LA 5, step
    1 , with seniority in grade and in step from 1 April            An action against the Commission of the European
    1994,                                                           Communities was brought before the Court of First


title: Removal from the register of Case C-327/93

text:
No C 180/26              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     22 . 6 . 96
Appeal brought on 7 May 1996 by C. Williams against the                 1 . Are Articles 59 and 60 of the Treaty establishing the
judgment delivered on 7 March 1996 by the Fifth Chamber                     EEC to be interpreted as precluding rules under which
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                  reimbursement of the cost of benefits is subject to
in Case T-146/94 between C. Williams and the Court of                       authorization from the insured person's social security
                                Auditors                                    institution if the benefits are provided in a Member State
                          Case C- 1 5 6/96 P                                other than the State in which that person resides ?
                            ( 96/C 180/59 )
                                                                        2 . Is the answer to the first question any different if the aim
                                                                            of the rules is to maintain a balanced medical and
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 7 March 1996
                                                                            hospital service accessible to everybody in a given
by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                            region ?
European Communities in Case T-146/94 between C.
Williams and the Court of Auditors was brought before the
 Court of Justice of the European Communities on 7 May
 1996 by C. Williams, represented by Eric Boigelot, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis
Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim .
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-3 27/93 ( )
The appellant claims that the Court should :                                                      ( 96/C 180/61 )
 1 , declare the appeal admissible and well founded;                    By order of 29 March 1996 , the President of the Court of
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
2 , consequently :                                                      from the register of Case C-327/93 ( reference for a
     ( a ) annul in its entirety the judgment delivered;                preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice, Queen's
                                                                        Bench Division ): The Queen v . Secretary of State for the
     ( b ) itself determine the case and, adjudicating on his           National Heritage, ex parte: ( 1 ) Continental Television
           initial application , annul the decision of 24 January       BVio, ( 2 ) Continental Television pic and ( 3 ) Mark Roy
                                                                        Garner .
           1994 , notified by bailiff service on the same day,
           and, in so far as may be necessary, annul the
           decision of 23 January 1994 implicitly rejecting the         (') OJ No C 211 , 5 . 8 . 1993 .
           complaint submitted by the appellant on
           23 September 1993 under Article 90 ( 2 ) of the Staff
           Regulations;
     ( c ) order the Court of Auditors to pay the costs of the
           appeal and of the proceedings at first instance .                  Removal from the register of Case C-120/94 ( 1 )
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                   ( 96/C 180/62 )
Infringement of Community law. The appellant maintains                  By order of 19 March 1996 , the President of the Court of
the pleas and claims advanced by him in the proceedings                 Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
before the Court of First Instance ( M.                                 from the register of Case C-120/94 : Commission of the
                                                                        European Communities v. Hellenic Republic .
0 ) OJ No C 146 , 28 . 5 . 1994 , p . 12 .
                                                                        (') OJ No C 174 , 25 . 6 . 1994 .
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de
Cassation of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg by judgment
of that court of 25 April 1996 in the case of Raymond Kohll                   Removal from the register of Case C-145/94 ( 1 )
                 v . Union des Caisses de Maladie                                                 ( 96/C 180/63 )
                          ( Case C-158/96 )
                            ( 96/C 180/60 )                             By order of 13 March 1996 , the President of the Court of
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                        from the register of Case C-145/94 ( reference for a
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Penal No 2 de
European Communities by a judgment of the Cour de
                                                                        Lleida ): criminal proceedings against José Antonio Alonso
Cassation ( Court of Cassation ) of the Grand Duchy of                  Rubio .
Luxembourg of 25 April 1996 , which was received at the
Court Registry on 9 May 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in
the case of Raymond Kohll v. Union des Caisses de Maladie               (') OJ No C 202 , 23 . 7. 1994 .
( Union of Health Insurance Funds ) on the following
questions :


title: Case C-149/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division), by order of that court of 13 March 2001, in the case of Commissioners of Customs and Excise against First Choice Holidays plc

text:
C 173/28               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      16.6.2001
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal                     2.    Does ‘the total amount to be paid by the traveller’
(England & Wales) (Civil Division), by order of that court                          within Article 26.2 include the additional sum
of 13 March 2001, in the case of Commissioners of                                   referred to in (c) above?
    Customs and Excise against First Choice Holidays plc
                         (Case C-149/01)                                (1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
                                                                            harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
                                                                            turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
                                                                            basis of assessment (OJ L 145, 13.06.77, p. 1).
                         (2001/C 173/47)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Court of Appeal
(England & Wales) (Civil Division) of 13 March 2001, which
was received at the Court Registry on 26 March 2001, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Commissioners of Customs
and Excise against First Choice Holidays, on the following
questions:
                                                                        Action brought on 9 April 2001 by the Commission of
                                                                         the European Communities against the French Republic
Where a tour operator within the meaning of Article 26 of
Council Directive 77/388/EEC (1)
                                                                                (Case C-150/01)
(a)   supplies package holidays to customers through the
      disclosed agency of a travel agent;                                                        (2001/C 173/48)
(b) permits the agent to arrange the supply of package                  An action against the French Republic was brought before the
      holidays at a discount from the price published in the            Court of Justice of the European Communities on 9 April
      tour operator’s brochure (the customer being liable to            2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
      pay only the discounted price for the holiday);                   represented by M. Patakia and B. Mongin, acting as Agents,
                                                                        with an address for service in Luxembourg.
(c)   requires the agent who arranges the supply of a package
      holiday at a discount not only to pass on to the tour             The Commission claims that the Court should:
      operator the price actually charged to the customer but
      also to pay to the tour operator an additional sum equal
      to the discount given to the customer (who is unaware of          1.    declare that, by retaining legislation which requires
      the financial arrangements between the tour operator and                intellectual property advisers established in other Member
      the agent), so that the agent accounts to the tour operator             States to appear on the register of French intellectual
      for the full brochure price of the holiday;                             property advisers, and thus to possess the French qualifi-
                                                                              cation and to be ordinarily resident or have a place of
                                                                              business in France, in order to supply services in France,
(d) agrees to pay the agent a commission based on the                         the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
      brochure price of the holiday, which in practice is paid                under Articles 49 to 55 of the EC Treaty and Council
      by set-off against the sums due from the agent as                       Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general
      mentioned in (c) above;                                                 system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas
                                                                              awarded on completion of professional education and
                                                                              training of at least three years’ duration (1);
(e)   does not know whether or not the agent has arranged the
      sale of a particular holiday at a discounted price, or the
      amount of the discount;                                           2.    order the French Republic to pay the costs.
(f)   as between itself and the agent, accounts for the sale of
      the holiday on the basis that it has been paid the full           Pleas in law and main arguments
      brochure price of the holiday;
                                                                        —     By making an ‘intellectual property adviser’ who provides
      1.    Having established the above facts, how should the                services subject to the same obligations as an ‘intellectual
            additional sum (referred to in (c) above) paid by the             property adviser’ established in France, the French legis-
            travel agent to the tour operator be characterised for            lation infringes Article 49 EC. While the pursuit, even as
            the purposes of Article 26.2?                                     a provider of services, of an activity which is not


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance 20 February 2002 in Case T-170/00: Förde-Reederei GmbH v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (Non-contractual liability of the Community — Directive 92/12/EEC on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty — Damage caused by transitional tax exemption arrangements for products bought by travellers during sea-crossings between two Member States)

text:
C 144/42               EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                       15.6.2002
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                        20 February 2002                                                             27 February 2002
in Case T-170/00: Förde-Reederei GmbH v Council of                          in Case T-219/00: Ellos AB v Office for Harmonisation in
the European Union and Commission of the European                           the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)
                         Communities (1)
                                                                            (Community trade mark — ELLOS — Absolute ground for
(Non-contractual liability of the Community — Directive                     refusal — Descriptive nature — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation
92/12/EEC on the general arrangements for products subject                                             (EC) No 40/94)
to excise duty — Damage caused by transitional tax exemp-
tion arrangements for products bought by travellers during
          sea-crossings between two Member States)
                                                                                (2002/C 144/89)
                         (2002/C 144/88)                                                       (Language of the case: English)
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                            In Case T-219/00, Ellos AB, established in Borås (Sweden),
                                                                            represented by G. Bergqvist, lawyer, v Commission of the
                                                                            European Communities (Agents: F. López de Rego and
                                                                            J. F. Crespo Carrillo): Action brought against the decision of
In Case T-170/00, Förde-Reederei GmbH, established in Flens-                the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in
burg (Germany), represented by U. Schrömbges and L. Harings,                the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 June
lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Council               2000 (Case R 385/1999-1), refusing registration of the term
of the European Union (Agents: A.-M. Colaert and J.-P. Hix)                 ELLOS as a Community trade mark, Court of First Instance
and Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                         (Fourth Chamber), composed of: P. Mengozzi, President,
E. Traversa, R. Lyal and K. Gross): Application seeking                     V. Tiili and R. M. Moura Ramos, Judges; D. Christensen,
compensation for damage allegedly suffered following the                    Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
expiry of the transitional tax exemption arrangements pro-                  27 February 2002, in which it:
vided by Article 28 of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of
25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products
subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and
monitoring of such products (OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1), Court of                  1.    Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office
First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of: R. M. Moura                         for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Ramos, President, J. Pirrung and A. W. H. Meij, Judges;                           Designs) of 15 June 2000 (Case R 385/1999-1) in so far as
D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a                     it concerns services falling within Class 35 of the Nice
judgment on 20 February 2002, in which it:                                        Agreement and corresponding to the following description:
                                                                                ‘customer services for mail-order sales’;
1.    Dismisses the application;                                            2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;
2.    Orders the applicant to pay all the costs.                            3.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
(1) OJ C 259 of 9.9.2000.                                                   (1) OJ C 316 of 4.11.2000.


title: Case T-109/99: Action brought on 2 May 1999 by Carlo De Nicola against European Investment Bank

text:
C 188/30               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                      3.7.1999
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant claims that the Commission is under a duty to                The applicant contests, as he does in Cases T-7/98 (1) and
recognise his personal status under the partnership contract               T-208/98, (2) the defendant’s decision to accept his resignation
lawfully entered into by him in the Netherlands. To the extent             and to bring to an end the employment relationship.
that, under the law of the Netherlands, the institution of
‘registered partnership’ gives rise, for him and his partner, to
rights and obligations which are broadly similar to those                  In support of his application, the applicant claims:
arising under a marriage contract, he submits that his rights
under the Staff Regulations and those of his partner should be             — his resignation is null and void on grounds of mental
determined so as to accord with those conferred on his married                 incapacity. In his view, the resignation was tendered when
colleagues under the Community rules.                                          he was in a state of depression, brought on by, among
                                                                               other factors, the psychological pressures he was under;
In the applicant’s submission, the Commission’s refusal to
recognise his status as a registered partner:                              — that, when an employee who tenders his resignation offers
                                                                               to continue working also during the period of notice, the
— infringes the principle enshrined in Article 4 of the EC                     employment relationship continues to produce its full legal
     Treaty that the institutions are to exercise the powers                   and economic effects until the end of such period.
     conferred on them;
— infringes the principle of the uniform nature of the                     On the latter point, the applicant explains that he was ill from
     personal status of Community nationals;                               28 September 1998 to 6 December 1998, from 8 January
                                                                           1999 to 7 February 1999 and since 15 February 1999, and
— infringes the principles of equal treatment and freedom of               that the period of notice ran from 7 December 1998 (when he
     movement for workers;                                                 returned to work after the first period of sick leave), and that,
                                                                           of the three months to which he was entitled, he had worked
— infringes the right to respect for private life and thus                 for only 38 days, including part of ordinary annual leave.
     Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of            Therefore, the applicant was entitled to work for a further
     Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; and                            63 days. Accordingly, the letter of 25 February 1999 and the
                                                                           subsequent conduct of the EIB could only be described as
— infringes Articles 27, 62, 71, 72 et seq. and 77 et seq. of              unfair dismissal.
     the Staff Regulations.
                                                                           (1) De Nicola v EIB (OJ 1998 C 94, p. 30).
                                                                           (2) De Nicola v EIB (OJ 1999 C 71, p. 31).
Action brought on 2 May 1999 by Carlo De Nicola against
                   European Investment Bank
                         (Case T-109/99)
                         (1999/C 188/68)                                           Removal from the register of Case T-46/96 (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 188/69)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
An action against the European Investment Bank was brought                                    (Language of the case: English)
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
on 2 May 1999 by Carlo De Nicola, represented by Luigi Isola
of the Rome Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at              By order of 8 February 1999 the President of the Fifth
the address of Cesare Berloni, 59 Route de Longwy.                         Chamber, Extended composition, of the Court of First Instance
                                                                           of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                the register of Case T-46/96 Whirlpool Sweden AB and
                                                                           Whirlpool SMC Microwave Products Development Ltd v
— annul the letter of 25 February 1999 whereby the EIB                     Council of the European Union.
     dismissed the applicant, together with all connected,
     preceding and subsequent acts;
— order the defendant EIB to pay the costs.                                (1) OJ No C 180 of 22.6.1996.


title: Case C-137/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Employment Tribunal (Leeds), by order of that court of 12 January 2001, in the case of 1) Mr P. Breckon 2) Mr M. Barrett against Secretary of State for Employment

text:
16.6.2001              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 173/25
           mean exclusively the European Community’s own                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Employment
           legislation? Or may national legislation too, such as        Tribunal (Leeds), by order of that court of 12 January
           certain provisions of the Kaivoslaki and the Jätease-        2001, in the case of 1) Mr P. Breckon 2) Mr M. Barrett
           tus in force in Finland, be ‘other legislation’ within                against Secretary of State for Employment
           the meaning of the Waste Directive?
                                                                                (Case C-137/01)
      (b) If ‘other legislation’ means also national legislation,
           does that mean exclusively national legislation
           which was already in force at the time of entry into                                  (2001/C 173/42)
           force of the Waste Directive 91/156/EEC or also
           that only enacted afterwards?
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      (c)  If ‘other legislation’ means also national legislation,      European Communities by an order of the Employment
           do fundamental European Community provisions                 Tribunal (Leeds) of 12 January 2001, which was received at
           relating to environmental protection or the prin-            the Court Registry on 27 March 2001, for a preliminary ruling
           ciples of the Waste Directive set requirements for           in the case of 1) Mr P. Breckon 2) Mr M. Barrett against
           national legislation concerning the level of environ-        Secretary of State for Employment, on the following question:
           mental protection as a condition for disapplying
           the rules of the Waste Directive? What sort of
                                                                        ‘Are the requirements of Directive 80/987 (1) fully satisfied by
           requirements could those be?
                                                                        rules of national law which may result in a claim relating to
                                                                        holiday pay against the Guarantee Institution being dismissed
(1) OJ L 194 of 25.7.1975, p. 39.
                                                                        owing to unforeseen delay in bringing about a state of
(2) OJ L 78 of 26.3.1991, p. 32.                                        insolvency in the employer, which delay was caused by the
                                                                        employer?’
                                                                        (1) Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the
                                                                            approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the
                                                                            protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their
                                                                            employer (OJ L 283, 28.10.1980, p. 23).
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
Bologna by order of that court of 20 February 2001 in
the case of Condominio ‘Facchini Orsini’ against Kone
                          Ascensori SpA
                         (Case C-129/01)
                         (2001/C 173/41)                                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster
                                                                        Gerichtshof der Republik Österreich, by orders of
                                                                        28 February and 14 February 2001 in the cases of Christa
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  Neukomm against Österreichischer Rundfunk and Josef
European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Bologna                      Lauermann against Österreichischer Rundfunk
of 20 February 2001, received at the Court Registry on
21 March 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Condominio ‘Facchini Orsini’ against Kone Ascensori SpA on                              (Cases C-138/01 and C-139/01)
the following question:
                                                                                (2001/C 173/43)
‘For the purposes of application of the provisions contained in
Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair
terms in consumer contracts published in Official Journal               Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
1993 L 95, can the co-ownership of buildings referred to in             European Communities by orders of the Oberster Gerichtshof
Articles 1117-1139 of the Civil Code be regarded as a                   der Republik Österreich of 28 February and 14 February 2001,
consumer where the individual owners are natural persons or             received at the Court Registry on 27 March 2001, for a
are acting for purposes outside their trade, business or                preliminary ruling in the cases of Christa Neukomm against
profession?’                                                            Österreichischer Rundfunk and Josef Lauermann against Öster-
                                                                        reichischer Rundfunk on the following questions:
(1) OJ L 95 of 21.4.1993, p. 29.                                        1.    Are the provisions of Community law, in particular those
                                                                              on data protection (Articles 1, 2, 6, 7 and 22 of Directive
                                                                              95/46/EC (1) in conjunction with Article 6 (formerly
                                                                              Article F) of the Treaty on European Union and Article 8


title: Case T-330/02: Action brought on 24 October 2002 by Wagenborg Sleepdienst BV against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
21.12.2002            EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 323/41
Pleas and main arguments                                                 Action brought on 24 October 2002 by Wagenborg
                                                                         Sleepdienst BV against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
The pleas relied on are the same as in Case T-326/02.
                                                                                (Case T-330/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 323/68)
Action brought on 24 October 2002 by URS Nederland                                          (Language of the case: Dutch)
BV against the Commission of the European Communities
                        (Case T-329/02)
                        (2002/C 323/67)                                  An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                         Communities on 24 October 2002 by Wagenborg Sleepdienst
                   (Language of the case: Dutch)                         BV, established in Rotterdam, represented by T.R. Ottervanger,
                                                                         with an address for service in Luxembourg.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European             The applicants claim that the Court of First Instance should:
Communities on 24 October 2002 by URS Nederland BV,
established in Rotterdam, represented by T.R. Ottervanger,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.                               1.    Primarily, annul Commission Decision C(2002) 2158 of
                                                                               19 June 2002 concerning State aid by the Netherlands in
                                                                               favour of the activities of Netherlands tugboats in sea
The applicants claim that the Court of First Instance should:                  harbours and on inland waterways of the Community;
1.    Primarily, annul Commission Decision C(2002) 2158 of               2.    In the alternative, annul Articles 2 and 3 of the Com-
      19 June 2002 concerning State aid by the Netherlands in                  mission’s contested decision in which the Commission
      favour of the activities of Netherlands tugboats in sea                  requires the Netherlands Government to adopt all necess-
      harbours and on inland waterways of the Community;                       ary measures in order to recover aid from the recipients
                                                                               — with the exception of aid paid before 12 September
2.    In the alternative, annul Articles 2 and 3 of the Com-                   1990;
      mission’s contested decision in which the Commission
      requires the Netherlands Government to adopt all necess-
      ary measures in order to recover aid from the recipients           3.    Order the Commission to pay the costs.
      — with the exception of aid paid before 12 September
      1990;
3.    Order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                         Pleas and main arguments
Pleas and main arguments
                                                                         The pleas relied on are the same as in Case T-326/02.
The pleas relied on are the same as in Case T-326/02.


               13.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 400/14

         Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Oslo tingrett dated 16 June 2014 in the case of Pharmaq AS v Intervet International BV
   (Case E-16/14)
   2014/C 400/06
   A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter dated 17 July 2014 from Oslo tingrett (Oslo District Court), which was received at the Court Registry on 23 July 2014, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Pharmaq AS v Intervet International BV, on the following questions:

               1.

               Concerning Article 2 of the SPC Regulation, has a product been placed on the market as a medicinal product in the EEA before it has been granted marketing authorisation in accordance with the procedure for administrative authorisation laid down in Directive 81/851/EEC (or Directive 2001/82/EC) when delivery of the product has taken place in accordance with:

                           (i)

                           ‘special approval exemptions’ granted by the State Medicines Agency to veterinarians and fish health biologists pursuant to Section 3-6 or 3-7 of the Norwegian Regulation of 22 December 1999, alternatively Sections 2-6 or 2-7 of the Norwegian Regulation of 18 December 2009, or

                           (ii)

                           what are known as ‘AR 16 licences’ granted by the Irish Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine pursuant to the Irish Statutory Instrument No 144/2007 European Communities (Animal Remedies) Regulations 2007 part III ‘Exceptional authorisation’, point 16?

               2.

               If question 1 is answered in the affirmative, is such a product outside the scope of the SPC Regulation and is an SPC granted on the basis of such a product therefore invalid?

               3.

               Concerning the interpretation of Article 2 of the SPC Regulation, should a marketing authorisation granted for a veterinary medicinal product pursuant to Article 26(3) of Directive 2001/82/EC be deemed to constitute an administrative authorisation pursuant to Directive 81/851/EEC (or Directive 2001/82/EC) within the meaning of Article 2?

               4.

                           (a)

                           Do special approval exemptions pursuant to Section 3-6 or 3-7 of the Norwegian Medicines Regulations of 1999 (FOR-1999-12-22-1559) or Section 2-6 or 2-7 of the Norwegian Medicines Regulations of 2009 (FOR-2009-12-18-1839) constitute valid authorisation to place the product on the market as a medicinal product within the meaning of Article 3(b)?

                           (b)

                           Do special approval exemptions pursuant to Section 3-6 or 3-7 of the Norwegian Medicines Regulations of 1999 (FOR-1999-12-22-1559) or Section 2-6 or 2-7 of the Norwegian Medicines Regulations of 2009 (FOR-2009-12-18-1839) constitute a first authorisation to place the product on the market as a medicinal product in Norway within the meaning of Article 3(d)?

               5.

               When the medicinal product is a virus vaccine, can the scope of protection under the SPC cover not only the specific strain of the virus that is included in the medicinal product and covered by the basic patent, but also other strains of the virus that are covered by the basic patent?
               In answering this question, is it of significance whether:

                           (a)

                           such other strains have an equivalent therapeutic effect to the virus strain included in the medicinal product or whether the therapeutic effect is not immediately equivalent?

                           (b)

                           a medicinal product based on such other strain will have to be the subject of a separate marketing authorisation with requirements for documentation of safety and effect?

               6.

               If an SPC has been granted with a product definition that is not strictly limited to the specific strain of the virus authorised to be placed on the market as a medicinal product,

                           (a)

                           will such an SPC be valid, or

                           (b)

                           will the SPC be valid; such, however, that the scope of protection pursuant to Article 4 does not extend beyond the specific virus strain authorised to be placed on the market as a medicinal product?