title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 September 2003 in Case C-22/02: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to implement Directive 1999/94/EC)

text:
1.11.2003               EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                              C 264/13
the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the                         D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, P. Jann, V. Skouris, F. Macken,
European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF)                    N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and A. Rosas
(OJ 2001 L 200, p. 28) in so far as it concerns the Kingdom of               (Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,
Spain, the Court (First Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet,                  Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
President of the Chamber, P. Jann and A. Rosas (Rapporteur),                 on 9 September 2003, in which it:
Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; H. von Holstein,
Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 September
                                                                             1.    Dismisses the appeal;
2003, in which it:
                                                                             2.    Orders Ms Kik to pay the costs;
1.    Dismisses the application;
                                                                             3.    Orders the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the
2.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.                                Council of the European Union and the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities to bear their own costs.
(1) OJ C 303 of 27.10.2001.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 331 of 24.11.2001.
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                      of 9 September 2003                                                            (Second Chamber)
in Case C-361/01 P: Christina Kik v Office for Harmonis-                                           of 11 September 2003
ation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                             (OHIM) (1)
                                                                             in Case C-22/02: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Italian Republic (1)
(Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 115 — Rules in force
governing languages at the Office for Harmonisation in the
                                                                             (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) — Plea
        of illegality — Principle of non-discrimination)                                    implement Directive 1999/94/EC)
                                                                                (2003/C 264/22)
                         (2003/C 264/21)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                          in the European Court Reports)
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             In Case C-22/02, Commission of the European Communities
In Case C-361/01 P, Christina Kik (represented by E. H. Pijnack-             (Agents: G. Valero Jordana and R. Amorosi) v Italian Republic
er Hordijk and S. B. Noë): Appeal against the judgment of the                (Agent: I.M. Braguglia, assisted by A. De Stefano): Application
Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case                  for a declaration that, by failing to adopt or, in any event, to
T-120/99 Kik v OHIM [2001] ECR II-2235, seeking to have                      communicate to the Commission the laws, regulations and
that judgment set aside, the other parties to the proceedings                administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive
being: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade                1999/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: A. von Mühendahl,                         13 December 1999 relating to the availability of consumer
O. Montalto and J. Miranda de Sousa) supported by Com-                       information on fuel economy and CO2 emissions in respect of
mission of the European Communities (Agents: W. Wils and                     the marketing of new passenger cars (OJ 2000 L 12, p. 16),
N. Rasmussen), Hellenic Republic (Agents: A. Samoni-Rantou                   the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
and S. Vodina), Kingdom of Spain (Agent: S. Ortiz Vaamonde)                  that directive, the Court (Second Chamber), composed of:
and Council of the European Union (Agent: G. Houttuin and                    R. Schintgen, President of the Chamber, V. Skouris and
A. Lo Monaco), the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodríguez                        N. Colneric (Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate Gen-
Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen             eral; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 September
and C.W.A. Timmermans, Presidents of Chamber, C. Gulmann,                    2003, in which it:
 ---pagebreak--- C 264/14                   EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                             1.11.2003
1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and              1.    Compliance with the prohibition of indirect discrimination on
      administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive                    grounds of sex is a condition governing the legality of all
      1999/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council                        measures adopted by the Community institutions.
      of 13 December 1999 relating to the availability of consumer
      information on fuel economy and CO2 emissions in respect of               2.    Examination of Question 1 has failed to disclose any factor
      the marketing of new passenger cars, the Italian Republic has                   capable of affecting the validity of the provision contained in
      failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;                          Article 5(1) of Council Directive 86/457/EEC of 15 September
                                                                                1986 on specific training in general medical practice and
2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                                   Article 34(1) of Council Directive 93/16/EEC of 5 April
                                                                                1993 to facilitate the free movement of doctors and the mutual
(1) OJ C 68 of 16.3.2002.
                                                                                recognition of their diplomas, certificates and other evidence of
                                                                                formal qualifications, according to which part-time training in
                                                                                general medical practice must include a certain number of
                                                                                periods of full-time training.
                                                                                (1) OJ C 97 of 20.4.2002.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         of 9 September 2003
in Case C-25/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht): Katharina Rinke v
                     Ärztekammer Hamburg (1)                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Equal treatment for men and women — Directives 86/457/
                                                                                of 9 September 2003
EEC and 93/16/EEC — Obligation to undertake certain
periods of full-time training during part-time training in
                       general medical practice)                                in Case C-151/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                                the Landesarbeitsgericht Schleswig-Holstein): Landes-
                             (2003/C 264/23)                                                  hauptstadt Kiel v Norbert Jaeger (1)
                     (Language of the case: German)                             (Social policy — Protection of the safety and health of
                                                                                workers — Directive 93/104/EC — Concepts of ‘working
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published          time’ and ‘rest period’ — On-call service (‘Bereitschafts-
                     in the European Court Reports)                                         dienst’) provided by doctors in hospitals)
                                                                                (2003/C 264/24)
In Case C-25/02: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) for a preliminary                                         (Language of the case: German)
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Katharina Rinke and Ärztekammer Hamburg on the interpret-
ation of Article 5 of Council Directive 86/457/EEC of 15 Sep-                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
tember 1986 on specific training in general medical practice                                        in the European Court Reports)
(OJ 1986 L 267, p. 26) and Article 34 of Council Directive 93/
16/EEC of 5 April 1993 to facilitate the free movement of
doctors and the mutual recognition of their diplomas, certifi-
cates and other evidence of formal qualifications (OJ 1993                      In Case C-151/02: Reference to the Court under Article 234
L 165, p. 1), and on the compatibility of those provisions with                 EC by the Landesarbeitsgericht Schleswig-Holstein (Germany)
the prohibition of indirect discrimination on grounds of sex as                 for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
laid down in Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976                    court between Landeshauptstadt Kiel and Norbert Jaeger
on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for                   on the interpretation of Council Directive 93/104/EC of
men and women as regards access to employment, vocational                       23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organis-
training and promotion, and working conditions (OJ 1976                         ation of working time (OJ 1993 L 307, p. 18) and, in particular,
L 39, p. 40), the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias,                  Articles 2(1) and (3) thereof, the Court, composed of: G.C. Ro-
President, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen and                      dríguez Iglesias, President, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen (Rappor-
C.W.A. Timmermans (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann,                         teur) and C.W.A. Timmermans, Presidents of Chambers,
D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, P. Jann (Rapporteur), V. Skouris,                 C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann, V. Skouris, F. Macken,
F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and                   N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and A. Rosas,
A. Rosas, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General;                              Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,
M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has                   Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
given a judgment on 9 September 2003, in which it has ruled:                    on 9 September 2003, in which it has ruled:


title: Case T-519/13: Action brought on 25 September 2013 — Leder & Schuh International v OHIM — Epple (VALDASAAR)

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/65

         Action brought on 25 September 2013 — Leder & Schuh International v OHIM — Epple (VALDASAAR)
   (Case T-519/13)
   2013/C 344/119
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Leder & Schuh International AG (Salzburg, Austria) (represented by: S. Korn, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Valerie Epple (Bronnen, Germany)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision of the First Board of Appeal, reject the opposition and

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings and the proceedings before the General Court of the European Union.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘VALDASAAR’ for goods and services in Classes 18, 25 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 9 591 249

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Valerie Epple

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the word mark ‘Val d’Azur’ for goods in Class 25

      Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld in part

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed in part

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Regulation No 207/2009 as there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 15 December 1995 in Case T-131/95: Nicolaos Progoulis v. Commission of the European Communities (Confirmatory act - New and material fact - Inadmissibility - Costs - Costs unreasonably caused)

text:
No C 64/ 12            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    2 . 3 . 96
2 . orders the applicant to pay the whole of the costs,               Vassilios Akritidis, of the Athens Bar, with an address for
      including those relating to the proceedings for the             service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arsène
      adoption of interim measures.                                   Kronshagen, 22 Rue Marie-Adelaide, v. Commission of the
                                                                      European Communities (Agents: Ana Maria Alves Vieira
f 1 ) OJ No C 120, 30 . 4 . 1994 .                                    and Bertrand Wägenbaur) — application, first, for
                                                                      annulment of the decision of the Commission, addressed to
                                                                      the applicant by letter of 20 March 1995 , rejecting his
                                                                      application for regrading in grade Bl , step 2 , with
                                                                      retroactive effect from 1 March 1983 , and, second, for an
                                                                      order requiring the Commission to bear the pecuniary
                                                                      effects of such regrading, together with interest thereon —
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            the Court of First Instance ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of R.
                       ( Second Chamber )                             Schintgen, President, and R. García-Valdecasas and J. Azizi,
                                                                      Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 15 December
                    of 14 December 1995                               1995 , the operative part of which is as follows :
in Case T-90/94: Erik Dan Frederiksen v. European
                           Parliament (*)
                                                                      1 . the action is dismissed as inadmissible;
                 (No need to give a decision)
                              96/C 64/26 )
                                                                      2 . the applicant is ordered to pay all of the costs.
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                      (') OJ No C 229 , 2 . 9 . 1995 .
In Case T-90/94: Erik Dan Frederiksen, an official of the
European Parliament, residing in Howald ( Luxembourg),
represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi , both
of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 1
Rue Glesener, against European Parliament ( Agents: Didier
Petersheim and Ezio Perillo ) — application for annulment of
                                                                                ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
Vacancy Notice No 7346 inviting applications for the post
                                                                               OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
of Language Adviser ( Grade LA 3 ) in the Danish Translation
Division — the Court of First Instance ( Second Chamber ),                                of 22 December 1995
composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, D. Barrington and P.            in Case T-219/95 R, Marie-Thérèse Danielsson and Others
Lindh, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on                          v. Commission of the European Communities
14 December 1995 , the operative part of which is as
follows :                                                                                ( 96/C 64/28 )
1 . there is no need to give a decision;                                             (Language of the case: English)
2 . the European Parliament is to pay the costs.                      In Case T-2 19/95 R: Marie-Therese Danielsson, Pierre
                                                                      Largenteau and Edwin Haoa, all residing in Tahiti, French
0 ) OJ No C 103 , 11 . 4 . 1994 .                                     Polynesia, representd by Phon van den Biesen, of the
                                                                      Amsterdam Bar, and Denis Waelbroeck, of the Brussels Bar,
                                                                      assisted during the written procedure by Gerrit Betlem and
                                                                      Seven Deimann, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                                                                      at the office of Dei Gréng, 31 Grand-Rue, v. Commission of
                                                                      the European Communities ( Agents : Richard Wainwright
                                                                      and Thomas Cusack ), supported by French Republic
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                      (Agents : Catherine de Salins, Marc Fonbaustier and
                    of 15 December 1995                               Jean-Francois Dobelle ) — application for suspension of the
in Case T-131/95 : Nicolaos Progoulis v. Commission of the            operation of the decision of the Commission of the
                  European Communities ( 1 )                          European Communities of 23 October 1995 regarding
                                                                      French nuclear tests and for an order that the Commission
(Confirmatory act — New and material fact —                           take all measures necessary to preserve and protect the
   Inadmissibility — Costs — Costs unreasonably caused)               applicants' rights under the EAEC Treaty — the President of
                            ( 96/C 64/27 )                            the Court of First Instance made an order on 22 December
                                                                      1995 , the operative part of which is as follows:
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                      1 . the French Republic is granted leave to intervene in
In Case T-131 /95 : Nicolaos Progoulis, an official of the                 support of the form of order sought by the
Commission of the European Communities, represented by                     Commission;


title: Case T-38/16: Order of the General Court of 5 July 2017 — EEB v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents concerning the withdrawal of Proposal COM(2014) 397 final for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council — Partial refusal of access — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               28.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/49

         Order of the General Court of 5 July 2017 — EEB v Commission
   (Case T-38/16) (1)

   ((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents concerning the withdrawal of Proposal COM(2014) 397 final for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council - Partial refusal of access - No need to adjudicate))
   (2017/C 283/76)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Environmental Bureau (EEB) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: B. Kloostra, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Buchet, F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and E. Sanfrutos Cano, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision Ares(2015) 5212500 of 19 November 2015.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action.

               2.

               The European Commission is to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Environmental Bureau (EEB).

      (1)  OJ C 118, 4.4.2016.


title: Case C-79/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 10 February 2016 — Cesare Serinelli and Others v Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri and Others

text:
               2.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/26

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 10 February 2016 — Cesare Serinelli and Others v Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri and Others
   (Case C-79/16)
   (2016/C 156/35)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Cesare Serinelli, Cosimo Antonio Palma, Maria Monico, Cosimo Miglietta, Mariano Luigi Mariano, Elena Russo, Galeana Miglietta, Pasqualina Cretì, Francesco D’Arpe, Antonietta Spalluto, Francesca Leo, Giovanna Malatesta, Vincenzo Conte, Luigi Ampolo, Raffaele Fasiello, Maria Miccoli, Anna Leone, Oronzo Maiorano, Antonio Rampino, Raffaele Tommasi, Fernando Elia

      Defendants: Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri — Dipartimento della Protezione Civile, Commissario Delegato OCDPC No 225/2015, Ministero delle politiche agricole alimentari e forestali, Regione Puglia

      Questions referred

               1.

               Do Directive 2000/29/EC, (1) as subsequently supplemented and amended, in particular Articles 11(3), 13c(7), and 16(1), (2), (3) and (5) thereof, and the principles of proportionality, logic and reasonableness preclude the application of Article 6(2) and (4) of European Commission Implementing Decision 2015/789/EU, (2) as implemented in the Italian legal order by Article 8(2) and (4) of the Decree of the Ministero delle politiche agricole alimentari e forestali (Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Forestry), in so far as it requires that host plants, regardless of their health status, be immediately removed within a radius of 100 metres around the plants which have been tested and found to be infected by the specified organism, and at the same time provides that the Member State is to carry out appropriate phytosanitary treatments prior to the removal of plants referred to in paragraph 2 against the vectors of the specified organism and plants that may host those vectors and that those treatments may include, as appropriate, removal of plants?

               2.

               Does Directive 2000/29/EC, as subsequently supplemented and amended, in particular Article 16(1) thereof, preclude, by use of the phrase ‘necessary measures to eradicate, or if that is impossible, inhibit the spread of the harmful organisms concerned’, the application of Article 6(2) of European Commission Decision 2015/789/EU, as implemented in the Italian legal order by Article 8(2) of the Decree of the Ministero delle politiche agricole alimentari e forestali, in so far as it provides for the immediate removal of host plants, regardless of their health status, within a radius of 100 metres around the plants which have been tested and found to be infected?

               3.

               Do Articles 16(1), (2), (3) and (5) of Directive 2000/29/EC and the principles of proportionality and logic and the right to due process preclude an interpretation of Article 6(2) and (4) of European Commission Implementing Decision 2015/789/EU — as implemented in the Italian legal order by Article 8(2) and (4) of the Decree of the Ministero delle politiche agricole alimentari e forestali — to the effect that the eradication measure referred to in Article 6(2) can be imposed before and independently of the preventive measures provided for in Articles 6(3) and (4)?

               4.

               Do the precautionary principle and the principles of adequacy and proportionality preclude the application of Article 6(2), (3) and (4) of European Commission Implementing Decision 2015/789/EU, as implemented in the Italian legal order by Article 8(2) and (4) of the Decree of the Ministero delle politiche agricole alimentari e forestali, in so far as it imposes measures to eradicate host plants within a radius of 100 metres around the plants which have been found to be infected by the organism ‘Xylella fastidiosa (Wells et al.)’, without adequate scientific evidence to demonstrate with certainty the causal relationship between the presence of the organism and the desiccation of the plants deemed to be infected?

               5.

               Do the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union preclude the application of Article 6(2) and (4) of European Commission Implementing Decision 2015/789/UE, in so far as it provides for the immediate removal of the hosts plants, regardless of their health status, within a radius of 100 metres around the plants which have been tested and found to be infected, since it fails to provide an adequate statement of reasons?

               6.

               Do the principles of adequacy and proportionality preclude the application of European Commission Implementing Decision 2015/789/EU — as implemented in the Italian legal order by the Decree of the Ministero delle politiche agricole alimentari e forestali — which provides measures for the removal of host plants, regardless of their health status, of plants known to be infected by the specified organism, and of plants showing symptoms indicating possible infection by the organism ‘Xylella fastidiosa (Wells et al.)’, or suspected of being infected by that organism, without providing for any form of compensation for the owners not responsible for the spread of the organism in question?

      (1)  Council Directive 2000/29/EC of 8 May 2000 on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the Community (OJ 2000 L 169, p. 1).

      (2)  Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/789 of 18 May 2015 as regards measures to prevent the introduction into and the spread within the Union of Xylella fastidiosa (Wells et al.) (OJ 2015 L 125, p. 36).


title: Action brought on 21 July 1998 by the French Republic against the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-277/98)

text:
C 278/30               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      5.9.98
Ð Does Article 2(2) of Council Directive 93/36/EEC of                     alternative forms of energy, tolls for crossing the Tagus
     14 June 1993 coordinating procedures for the award                   bridge in Lisbon and, finally, agricultural tools and
     of public supply contracts (1) still have an independent             implements, the Portuguese Republic has infringed
     meaning after the adoption of Council Directive 92/                  Article 12 and Article 28(2) of Council Directive 77/
     50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination                  388/EEC (1) (the sixth VAT Directive), as amended by
     of procedures for the award of public service                        Directive 92/77/EEC (2) on the approximation of VAT
     contracts (2) (as both amended by European Parliament                rates,
     and Council Directive 97/52/EC (3))?
Ð If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, does the              Ð order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
     provision accordingly mean that, where a contracting
     authority entrusts the administration of a pig
     eartagging scheme to a private undertaking which is              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     not a contracting authority, the contracting authority
     should stipulate, on the one hand, that the
     undertaking should comply with the prohibition
     against discrimination on the ground of nationality in           Pursuant to Article 12(3) of the sixth VAT Directive, as
     public supply contracts which the undertaking awards             amended by Directive 92/77/EEC, the Member States are
     to third parties and, on the other hand, that the                to apply a standard rate, which may not be less than
     procurement of goods linked to the scheme should be              15 %. As is clear from Article 12(3)(a) and (b), the
     put out to public tender if the value of the goods to be         Member States may apply either one or two reduced rates
     procured exceeds the threshold value in Directive 93/            to the transactions referred to in Annex H to Directive 92/
     36/EEC?                                                          77/EEC. By applying reduced rates to transactions not
                                                                      referred to in that Annex (wines, machines and equipment
                                                                      for exploiting alternative forms of energy and agricultural
(1) OJ L 199, 9.8.1993, p. 1.                                         tools and implements) the Portuguese Republic has
(2) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, p. 1.
                                                                      infringed Article 12.
(3) Directive 97/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the
    Council of 13 October 1997, amending Directives 92/50/EEC,
    93/36/EEC and 93/37/EEC concerning the coordination of
    procedures for the award of public service contracts, public
                                                                      As regards the tolls for crossing the Tagus bridge in
    supply contracts and public works contracts (OJ L 328,
    28.11.1997, p. 1).
                                                                      Lisbon, Article 28(2)(a) of the sixth Directive, in
                                                                      conjunction with subparagraph (d), does not, contrary to
                                                                      the view advanced by the Portuguese authorities, allow the
                                                                      introduction after 1 January 1991 of a new reduced rate
                                                                      at the time of withdrawal, at a later stage, of the reduced
                                                                      rate in force on that date.
Action brought on 20 July 1998 by the Commission of the               (1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.
  European Communities against the Portuguese Republic                (2) OJ L 316, 31.10.1992, p. 1.
                        (Case C-276/98)
                         (98/C 278/56)
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
on 20 July 1998 by the Commission of the European                     Action brought on 21 July 1998 by the French Republic
Communities, represented by Teresa Figueira and Enrico                   against the Commission of the European Communities
Traversa, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an                                    (Case C-277/98)
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                                   (98/C 278/57)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                      An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
Ð declare that, by keeping in force or introducing a                  the European Communities on 21 July 1998 by the French
     reduced rate of 5 % for the products listed in points            Republic, represented by Kareen Rispal-Bellanger,
     1.8, 2.11, 2.19 and 3.8 of Annex I to the Código do              Assistant Director for International Economic Law and
     IVA (VAT Code) (Decree-Law No 394-B/84 of                        Community Law, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and
     26 December 1984, as amended by Law No 2/92 of                   Christina Vasak, Assistant Secretary for Foreign Affairs,
     9 March 1992 and by Law No 39-B/94 of                            acting as Agents, with an address for service in
     27 December 1994), which relate, respectively, to                Luxembourg at the French Embassy, 8b boulevard
     wines, machines and equipment for exploiting                     Joseph II.
 ---pagebreak--- 5.9.98                  EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 278/31
The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:                   8 July 1998, which was received at the Court Registry on
                                                                         23 July 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                         Roman Angonese v. Cassa di Risparmio di Bolzano SpA
Ð annul the relevant part of Commission Decision 98/                     on the following question:
     358/EC (1) in so far as it applies negative corrections'
     in respect of supplementary levies for milk
     corresponding to sums the recovery of which is the                  Is it compatible with Article 48(1), (2) and (3) of the EC
     subject of proceedings before the competent national                Treaty and Article 3(1) and Article 7(1) and (4) of Council
     courts.                                                             Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 (1) to make the admission
                                                                         of candidates to a competition organised to fill posts
                                                                         in a company governed by private law conditional on
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      possession of the official certificate attesting to knowledge
                                                                         of local languages issued exclusively by a public authority
                                                                         of a Member State at a single examination centre (namely
Ð Infringement of Articles 2, 3, 5 and 8 of Council                      Bolzano), on completion of a procedure of considerable
     Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 of 21 April 1970 on the                  duration (to be precise, of not less than 30 days, on
     financing of the common agricultural policy (2): the                account of the minimum lapse of time envisaged between
     Commission is entitled to exclude from its decision                 the written test and the oral test)?
     only expenses corresponding to incorrect application,
     and a fortiori non-application, of Community law. The
     sums covered to which the contested decision relates                (1) Official Journal, English Special Edition 1968 II, p. 475.
     are the result neither of irregularities nor of negligence
     within the meaning of Regulation (EEC) No 729/70.
     The corrections made by the Commission relate to
     amounts which have been challenged before the
     French administrative courts. The amounts in question
     will be payable as soon as an enforceable judgment
     has made it possible to recover them. On the other
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungs-
     hand, Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 does not authorise
                                                                         gericht Hannover by order of that court of 13 July 1998
     the Commission to charge those sums to a Member
                                                                         in the case of Tanja Kreil against the Federal Republic of
     State when the latter has been unable to recover them
                                                                                Germany
     from the persons concerned.
                                                                                (Case C-285/98)
Ð The imposition by the Commission of a time limit for                                              (98/C 278/59)
     recovering the amounts demanded is contrary to the
     principle of sound administration as enunciated, in
     particular, in Article 8 of Regulation (EEC) No 729/
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     70.
                                                                         European Communities by order of the Second Chamber
                                                                         of the Verwaltungsgericht Hannover (Administrative
(1) Commission Decision 98/358/EC of 6 May 1998 on the                   Court, Hannover) of 13 July 1998, received at the Court
    clearance of the accounts presented by the Member States in          Registry on 24 July 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the
    respect of the expenditure for 1994 of the Guarantee Section         case of Tanja Kreil against the Federal Republic of
    of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund
                                                                         Germany on the following question:
    (OJ L 163, 6.6.1998, p. 28).
(2) Official Journal, English Special Edition 1970 I, p. 218.
                                                                         Is Council Directive 76/207/EEC (1) Ð in particular with
                                                                         regard to Article 2(2) of that Directive Ð infringed by the
                                                                         third sentence of paragraph 1(2) of the Soldatengesetz
                                                                         (Law on Soldiers) in the version of 15 December 1995
                                                                         (Bundesgesetzblatt I, p. 1737), last amended by the Law
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura                        of 4 December 1997 (Bundesgesetzblatt I, p. 2846),
Circondariale di Bolzano by order of that court of 8 July                and paragraph 3a of the Soldatenlaufbahnverordnung
1998 in the case of Roman Angonese v. Cassa di                           (Regulations on soldiers' Careers) in the version published
                  Risparmio di Bolzano SpA (1)                           on 28 January 1998 (Bundesgesetzblatt I, p. 326), under
                                                                         which women who enlist as volunteers may be appointed
                         (Case C-281/98)                                 only to duties in the medical and military-music services
                           (98/C 278/58)                                 and are excluded in any event from armed service?
                                                                         (1) OJ L 39, 14.2.1976, p. 40.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of
the European Communities by order of the Pretura
Circondariale di Bolzano (District Court, Bolzano) of


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Trier by order of that court of 29 November 1996 in the case of Caisse de Pension des Employés Privés v. l. Dieter Korde, 2. Rainer Kordel and 3. Frankfurter Allianz Versicherungs AG (Case C-397/96)

text:
8 . 2 . 97               I hN 1                Official Journal of the European Communities                                      No C 40/ 13
Directive . Furthermore , there is no provision which would                          Directive ') (') to dismiss a female employee, at any
require the Minister concerned to inform the Commission                              time during her pregnancy, as a result of absence
( Article 2 ( 3 ) ( c ) of the Directive ).                                          through illness arising from that pregnancy ?
Article 5 : Information to be supplied by the developer                        ( b ) Does it make any difference to the answer given to
                                                                                Question 1 ( a ) that the employee was dismissed in
                                                                                pursuance of a contractual provision entitling the
There is nothing in the Irish legislation that indicates that                        employer to dismiss employees, irrespective of
a decision-maker, before restricting a demand to Article                             gender, after a stipulated number of weeks of
5 ( 2 ), mandatory information only, should consider the                             continued absence ?
relevance or reasonableness of asking for Annex III
optional information . It is the Commission 's contention
that, before so restricting the demand, the decision-maker                2 . ( a ) Is it contrary to Articles 2 ( 1 ) and 5 ( 1 ) of the
should apply the Article 5 ( 1 ) test as to the relevance and/                       Equal Treatment Directive to dismiss a female
or reasonableness of asking for Annex III information and                            employee as a result of absence through illness
should have concluded that either the information was
                                                                                arising from pregnancy who does not qualify for
irrelevant (paragraph ( a ) of Article 5 ( 1 )), or the demand                       the right to absent herself from work on account
unreasonable ( paragraph ( b ) of Article 5 ( 1 )). As it stands ,                   of pregnancy or childbirth for the period specified
the Irish legislation leaves the decision-maker entirely free                        by national law because she has not been
to ignore the optional information as a matter of general                            employed for the period imposed by national law,
practice .                                                                           where dismissal takes place during that period ?
Article 7: Information to the other Member States                              ( b ) Does it make any difference to the answer given to
                                                                                Question 2 ( a ) that the employee was dismissed in
The Irish legislation provides a mechanism whereby local                             pursuance of a contractual provision entitling the
authorities ( the decision-makers ) should notify the Irish                          employer to dismiss employees , irrespective of
Minister for the Environment of an application likely to                             gender, after a stipulated number of weeks of
                                                                                continued absence ?
have significant effects on the environment in another
Member State. It then allows the Minister to require the
local authority to furnish him with such information and                  H OJ No L 39 , 14 . 2 . 1976 , p . 40 .
documents as he may specify. However, this latter power
can only be exercised where the other Member State has
sought to be consulted . Furthermore , there appears to be
no explicit duty on the Minister to furnish information to
the other Member State .
 (') OJ No L 175 , 5 . 7 . 1985 , p . 40 .                                Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht
                                                                          Trier by order of that court of 29 November 1996 in the
                                                                          case of Caisse de Pension des Employes Prives v. 1. Dieter
                                                                          Korde , 2 . Rainer Kordel and 3 . Frankfurter Alii an z
                                                                                Versicherungs AG
                                                                                ( Case C-397/96 )
Reference for a prelimininary ruling by the House of                                                     ( 97/C 40/27 )
 Lords, by order of that court of 28 November 1996, in
     the case of Mrs Mary Brown against Rentokil Limited
                             ( Case C-394/96 )                            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                ( 97/C 40/26 )                            European Communities by an order of the Landgericht
                                                                          Trier ( Trier Regional Court ) of 29 November 1996 , which
                                                                          was received at the Court Registry on 12 December 1996 ,
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   for a preliminary ruling in the case of Caisse de Pension
 European Communities by an order of the House of Lords                   des Employes Prives v. 1 . Dieter Kordel , 2 . Rainer Kordel
 of 28 November 1996 , which was received at the Court                    and 3 . Frankfurter Allianz Versicherungs AG on the
 Registry on 9 December 1996, for a preliminary ruling in                  following question :
 the case of Mrs Mary Brown against Rentokil Limited, on
 the following questions :
                                                                           How is Article 93 ( 1 ) ( a ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 (')
                                                                           to be interpreted ? Does recognition by the Member States
  1 . a ) Is it contrary to Articles 2 ( 1 ) and 5 ( 1 ) of Council        extend      also to the definition        of the content of the
           Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the                  subrogated claim in another Member State ( in this case ,
           implementation of the principle of equal treatment              the second sentence of Article 232 of the Luxembourg
           for men and women as regards access to                          Code des Assurances Sociales in conjunction with the
           employment, vocational training and promotion,                  relevant Grand Ducal Regulation, under which the claim
           and working conditions ('the Equal Treatment                    to which the pension fund is subrogated is to amount to
 ---pagebreak--- No C 40/ 14           1 EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       8 . 2 . 97
the cover capital of the pension less the accrued rights ) or                     Removal from the register of C-290/95 (')
only to the subrogation as such ?                                                                    ( 97/C 40/30 )
(') Offical Journal, English Special Edition 1971 ( II ), p. 416 .
                                                                        By order of 2 October 1996 the President of the Court of
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
                                                                        removal from the register of Case C-290/95 : Commission
                                                                        of the European Communities v. Italian Republic .
                                                                        (') OJ No C 286 , 28 . 10 . 1995 .
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour du Travail
( Fourth Chamber), Brussels, by judgment of that court of
11 December 1996 in the case of Europieces SA against
Wilfried Sanders and Automotive Industries Holding
                             Company SA
                          ( Case C-399/96 )                                       Removal from the register of C-3 19/95 (')
                              97/C 40/28 )                                                           ( 97/C 40/31 )
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  By order of 23 September 1 996 the President of the Court
European Communities by judgment of the Cour du                         of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Travail (Higher Labour Court ) ( Fourth Chamber ),                      removal from the register of Case C-319/95 : Commission
Brussels, of 11 December 1996 , which was received at the               of the European Communities v. Ireland .
 Court Registry on 17 December 1996 , for a preliminary
 ruling in the case of Europieces SA against Wilfried                   (') OJ No C 333 , 9 . 12 . 1995 .
 Sanders and Automotive Industries Holding Company SA
 on the following question :
 Does Council Directive 77/ 187/EEC (') of 14 February
 1977 on the approximation of the laws of the Member
 States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in                      Removal from the register of C-4 10/95 (')
 the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts                                          ( 97/C 40/32 )
 of businesses apply where a company in liquidation
 transfers all or part of its assets to another company                  By order of 27 September 1996 the President of the Court
 which then issues orders to a worker which the company                  of Justice of the Fluropean Communities has ordered the
 in liquidation says must be carried out ?                               removal from the register of Case C-410/95 ( reference for
                                                                         a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Commerce de
 O O J No L 61 , 5 . 3 . 1977, p . 26 .                                  Nice ): SA Societe des Grands Garages Mediterraneens ,
                                                                         Societe Nissan France v. Societe Nice Ouest Automobiles .
                                                                         (") OJ No C 46 , 17 . 2 . 1996 .
 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal
 Correctionnel, Charleroi, by judgment of that court of
  21 October 1996 in the case of Ministere Public v. Jean
                                Harpegnies                                         Removal from the register of C- 18/96 (')
                           ( Case C-400/96 )                                                           ( 97/C 40/33 )
                              ( 97/C 40/29 )
                                                                          By order of 8 October 1 996 the President of the Court of
  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                         from the register of Case C- 18/96 : Commission of the
  European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal
  Correctionnel ( Criminal Court ), Charleroi , of 21 October            European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium .
  1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on
                                                                          (■) OJ No C 77, 16 . 3 . 1996 .
  17 December 1996, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
  Ministere Public ( Public Prosecutor ) v. Jean Harpegnies on
  the following question :
  Is Belgian legislation, in so far so it still requires approval
  by the Belgian authorities of plant-protection products                          Removal from the register of C-l 34/96 ( 1 )
  marketed in another Member State, in ' breach of the rules
  on the free movement of goods in the Community, as laid                                               ( 97/ C 40/34 )
  down in Article 30 of the EEC Treaty ?
                                                                          By order of 3 October 1996 the President of the Court of
                                                                          Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber, extended composition) of 1 February 1995 in Case T-88/94: Société Commerciale des Potasses et de l'Azote and Entreprise Minière et Chimique v. Commission of the European Communities (Disclaimer of jurisdiction)

text:
No C 87/12               EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                     8 . 4 . 95
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            Embassy,      9   Boulevard       Prince  Henri,  against the
                       of 15 February 1995                           Commission of the European Communities (Agents: B. J.
                                                                     Drijber and J. Bourgeois ), supported by Kali and Salz
in Case T-552/93 : Giuseppe Grassi v. Commission of the              Beteiligungs-Aktiengesellschaft and Kali und Salz GmbH,
                  European Communities f 1 )                         established in Kassel (Federal Republic of Germany),
 (Officials  — Admissibility — Prior complaint through               represented by Karlheinz Quack, of the Berlin Bar, and
 official channels — Implied decision, not contested within          Georg Albrechtskirchinger, of the Frankfurt am Main Bar,
 the period prescribed, rejecting a request — Subsequent             with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
    express decision — Confirmatory act — Out of time)               of Marc Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe — application for the
                             ( 95/C 87/26                            partial annulment, first, of Article 1 of the decision of the
                                                                     Commission of 14 December 1993 relating to a proceeding
                                                                     under Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 4064/89 of
                (Language of the case: Italian)                      21 December 1989 on the control of concentrations
                                                                     between            undertakings           ( IV-M.308          —
In Case T-552/93 : Giuseppe Grassi, a temporary agent of             Kali+Salz/MdK/Treuhand ), in so far as it makes the
the Commission of the European Communities assigned to               declaring of the concentration compatible with the common
the Joint Research Centre, Ispra, residing at Cadrezzate,            market conditional upon compliance with the conditions set
represented by Angelo Ulgheri, of the Milan Bar, with an             out in paragraph 63 thereof and, secondly, of the decision,
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                 in so far as it. has accepted the commitment mentioned in
Franco " Colussi, 36 Rue Wiltz, v. Commission of the                 paragraph 65 thereof whereby Kali und Salz AG undertook
European Communities (Agent: G. Valsesia ) — application             to modify the corporate structure of Potacan by 30 June
for the annulment of the decision of the Commission of               1994 — the Court of First Instance ( Second Chamber,
24 September 1992 rejecting the applicant's request for the          extended composition), composed of B. Vesterdorf,
transfer of his pension rights, acquired in the Italian State        President, D. P. M. Barrington, A. Saggio, H. Kirschner and
pension scheme, to the Community pension scheme — the                A. Kalogeropoulos, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an
Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: J.             order on 1 February 1995, the operative part of which is as
Biancarelli, President, and C. P. Briët and C. W. Bellamy,           follows :
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on
 15 February 1995 , in which it:                                     1 , jurisdiction is declined in Case T-88/94, Société
                                                                         Commerciale des Potasses et de l'Azote and Entreprise
                                                                         Minière et Chimique v. Commission of the European
 1 . dismisses the application as manifestly inadmissible;
                                                                         Communities, in order to enable the Court ofJustice to
                                                                         rule on the application for annulment;
2 . orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                                                                     2 . the costs are reserved.
(!) OJ No C 1 , 4 . 1 . 1994 .
                                                                     (!) OJ No C 103 , 11 . 4 . 1994 .
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
          (Second Chamber, extended composition)                                           of 6 February 1995
                        of 1 February 1995                           in Case T-66/94: Auditel Sri v. Commission of the European
in Case T-88/94: Société Commerciale des Potasses et de
                                                                                Communities (*)
l'Azote and Entreprise Minière et Chimique v. Commission             (Intervention — Confidentiality — Rules on the use of
              of the European Communities ( a )                                                   languages)
                  (Disclaimer ofjurisdiction)                                                   ( 95/C 87/28 )
                            ( 95/C 87/27)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                    In Case T-66/94: Auditel Sri, established in Milan (Italy),
                                                                    represented by Giuseppe Sena and Paola Tarchini, of the
In Case T- 8 8/94 : Societe Commerciale des Potasses et de          Milan Bar, Mario Siragusa, of the Rome Bar, Giuseppe
l'Azote, established in Mulhouse (France ), and Entreprise           Scassellati Sforzolini and Francesca Maria Moretti, of the
Miniere et Chimique, established at Paris, represented by           Bologna Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
Charles Price, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service     the office of Elvinger, Hoss & Prussen, 15 Cote d'Eich, v.
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Lucy Dupong, 14A Rue               Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G.
des Bains, supported by French Republic (Agents : Edwige            Marenco and A. Dal Ferro) — application for the
Belliard, Catherine de Salins and Jean-Marc Belorgey), with         annulment of Articles 1 and 2 of Commission Decision
an address for service in Luxembourg at the French                  93/668/EC of 24 November 1993 relating to a proceeding


title: Case T-39/13: Action brought on 25 January 2013 — Cezar/OHIM — Poli-Eco (Skirting boards)

text:
               6.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 101/21

         Action brought on 25 January 2013 — Cezar/OHIM — Poli-Eco (Skirting boards)
   (Case T-39/13)
   2013/C 101/45
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Cezar Przedsiębiorstwo Produkcyjne Dariusz Bogdan Niewiński (Ełk, Poland) (represented by: M. Nentwig and G. Becker, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Poli-Eco Tworzywa Sztuczne sp. z o.o. (Szprotawa, Poland)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of November 8, 2012 (case R 1512/2010-3);

               —

               Order the defendant to bear the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade design in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The trade design ‘skirting boards’ — Registered Community design No 70 438-0002

      Proprietor of the Community trade design: The applicant

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade design: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The application for a declaration of invalidity was based on a lack of novelty and individual character pursuant to Article 25 (1)(b) in conjunction with Articles 4 to 6 of Council Regulation No 6/2002

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declared the contested RCD invalid

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 25(1)(b), 63(1) and 62(1) of the Council Regulation No 6/2002.


title: Case T-425/08: Judgment of the General Court of 12 April 2013 — KODA v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Copyright relating to public performance of musical works via the internet, satellite and cable retransmission — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Sharing of the geographic market — Bilateral agreements between national collecting societies — Concerted practices precluding the possibility of granting multi-territory and multi-repertoire licences — Proof — Presumption of innocence)

text:
               1.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/34

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 April 2013 — KODA v Commission
   (Case T-425/08) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Copyright relating to public performance of musical works via the internet, satellite and cable retransmission - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Sharing of the geographic market - Bilateral agreements between national collecting societies - Concerted practices precluding the possibility of granting multi-territory and multi-repertoire licences - Proof - Presumption of innocence)
   2013/C 156/59
   Language of the case: Danish

      Parties

      Applicant: Koda (Copenhagen, Denmark) (represented initially by K. Dyekjær and J. Borum, then by J. Borum and C. Karhula Lauridsen, and finally by J. Borum and G. Holtsø, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by F. Castillo de la Torre and N. Rasmussen, then F. Castillo de la Torre and U. Nielsen, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) (Zurich, Switzerland) (represented by: L. Uusitalo and L. Rechardt, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Article 3 of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC), in so far as it concerns Koda;

               2.

               Annuls Article 4(2) and (3) of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final, to the extent that they refer to Article 3 of that decision, in so far as they concern Koda;

               3.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               4.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Koda, with the exception of the costs occasioned by the intervention;

               5.

               Orders the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Koda in connection with IFPI’s intervention;

               6.

               Orders Koda and the Commission to each bear their own costs relating to the interim relief proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 327, 20.12.2008.


title: Case C-449/07: Action brought on 3 October 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

text:
               24.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/24

         Action brought on 3 October 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-449/07)
   (2007/C 283/43)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Montaguti and R. Vidal Puig, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic
   Forms of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by not adopting (all) the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/36/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on the safety of third-country aircraft using Community airports, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11 of that Directive;

               —

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for the transposition of Directive 2004/36/EC into national law expired on 30 April 2006.

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 143, p. 76.


title: Case C-4/07: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 September 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2003/110/EC — Assistance in cases of transit for the purposes of removal by air — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               24.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/3

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 September 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-4/07) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2003/110/EC - Assistance in cases of transit for the purposes of removal by air - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   (2007/C 283/04)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Condou-Durande and P. Guerra e Andrade, Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Fernandes and F. Fraústo de Azevedo, Agents)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/110/EC on assistance in cases of transit for the purposes of removal by air (OJ 2003 L 321, p. 26)
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               By failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/110/EC on assistance in cases of transit for the purposes of removal by air, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 10(1) of that directive;

               2.

               The Portuguese Republic is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.


title: Case F-107/13: Action brought on 25 October 2013 — ZZ v European Commission

text:
               25.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/41

         Action brought on 25 October 2013 — ZZ v European Commission
   (Case F-107/13)
   2014/C 24/76
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: É. Boigelot and R. Murru, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the Commission’s decision to impose a disciplinary penalty on the applicant under Article 9(2) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations and an application for damages for the non-material harm allegedly suffered and an application for reimbursement of the sums already withheld.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               Annul the decision of 14 March 2013 imposing on him a penalty of the reduction of his monthly net pension by one third for a two-year period;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay compensation to the applicant for the harm suffered, fixed at the total sum off EUR 10 000, subject to being increased during the proceedings;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay all the costs.


title: Case T-390/07 P: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 November 2008 — Speiser v Parliament (Appeal — Staff case — Temporary staff — Admissibility — Expatriation allowance — Purely confirmatory decision — Complaint made out of time)

text:
               20.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 327/23

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 November 2008 — Speiser v Parliament
   (Case T-390/07 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Staff case - Temporary staff - Admissibility - Expatriation allowance - Purely confirmatory decision - Complaint made out of time)
   (2008/C 327/42)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Appellant: Michael Alexander Speiser (Neu-Isenburg, Germany) (represented by: F. Theumer, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: initially A. Lukošiūtė and N. Lorenz and subsequently A. Lukošiūtė and S. Seyr, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Appeal against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 10 September 2007 in Case F-146/06 Speiser v Parliament, not yet published in the ECR, seeking to have that order set aside
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders each party to bear the costs incurred in the appeal proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 297, 8.12.2007.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 April 2003 in Case C-65/01: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 89/655/EEC — Incomplete transposition)

text:
7.6.2003                 EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                               C 135/5
a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
court between Linde AG (C-53/01), Winward Industries Inc.
(C-54/01), and and Rado Uhren AG (C-55/01), on the
interpretation of Article 3(1)(b), (c) and (e) of First Council                                          (Sixth Chamber)
Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate
the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ
1989 L 40, p. 1), the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodríguez
                                                                                of 10 April 2003
Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen and
C.W.A. Timmermans, Presidents of Chamber, C. Gulmann,
D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, V. Skouris, F. Macken (Rappor-
teur), J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, and A. Rosas, Judges; D. Ruiz-                   in Case C-65/01: Commission of the European Communi-
Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy                                           ties v Italian Republic ( 1)
Registrar, has given a judgment on 8 April 2003, in which it
has ruled:
                                                                              (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
                                                                                89/655/EEC — Incomplete transposition)
                                                                                (2003/C 135/07)
1.    When assessing the distinctiveness of a three-dimensional shape
      of product trade mark for the purposes of Article 3(1)(b) of                                 (Language of the case: Italian)
      First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to
      approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade
      marks, a stricter test than that used for other types of trade          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
      mark must not be applied.                                                                   in the European Court Reports)
2.    Independently of Article 3(1)(e) of First Directive 89/104,             In Case C-65/01, Commission of the European Communities
      Article 3(1)(c) also has significance for three-dimensional shape       (Agent: A. Aresu) v Italian Republic (Agent: U. Leanza, assisted
      of product trade marks.                                                 by D. Del Gaizo, avvocato dello Stato): Application for a
                                                                              declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws and regulations
                                                                              necessary to transpose into national law the minimum manda-
                                                                              tory requirements and, therefore, by failing to guarantee the
      When examining the ground for refusing registration in                  protection of workers, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil
      Article 3(1)(c) of First Directive 89/104 in a concrete case,           its obligations under Article 4(1) of, and the sixth sentence of
      regard must be had to the public interest underlying that               paragraph 2.1, the second sentence of paragraph 2.2, the
      provision, which is that all three-dimensional shape of product         second to fourth sentences of paragraph 2.3, and the second
      trade marks which consist exclusively of signs or indications           to fifth indents of the second sentence of paragraph 2.8 of
      which may serve to designate the characteristics of the goods or        Annex I to, Council Directive 89/655/EEC of 30 November
      service within the meaning of that provision should be freely           1989 concerning the minimum safety and health requirements
      available to all and, subject always to Article 3(3) of the             for the use of work equipment by workers at work (second
      Directive, cannot be registered.                                        individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of
                                                                              Directive 89/391/EEC) (OJ 1989 L 393, p. 13), as amended by
                                                                              Council Directive 95/63/EC of 5 December 1995 (OJ 1995
                                                                              L 335, p. 28), the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
                                                                              J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann,
                                                                              F. Macken, N. Colneric (Rapporteur), and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues,
                                                                              Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
                                                                              given a judgment on 10 April 2003, in which it:
( 1) OJ C 150 of 19.05.2001.
                                                                              1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws and regulations
                                                                                necessary to transpose into national law the minimum manda-
                                                                                tory requirements, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
                                                                                obligations under Article 4(1) of and the sixth sentence of
                                                                                paragraph 2.1, the second sentence of paragraph 2.2, the third
                                                                                and fourth sentences of paragraph 2.3, and the second to fifth
                                                                                indents of the second sentence of paragraph 2.8 of Annex I
                                                                                to Council Directive 89/655/EEC of 30 November 1989
                                                                                concerning the minimum safety and health requirements for the
 ---pagebreak--- C 135/6                    EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                              7.6.2003
      use of work equipment by workers at work (second individual                  the light of all the factual and legal evidence available to it,
      Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/               whether or not the results of analyses of samples of a
      391/EEC), as amended by Council Directive 95/63/EC of                        manufacturer’s products are to be admitted as evidence that the
      5 December 1995;                                                             manufacturer has infringed a Member State’s national rules on
                                                                                foodstuffs where the manufacturer has been unable to exercise
2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                                his right to a second opinion under the second subparagraph of
                                                                                Article 7(1) of Directive 89/397. In that regard, the national
                                                                                court must verify that the national rules on the taking of
( 1) OJ C 118 of 21.04.2001.
                                                                                evidence applicable to such an action are not less favourable
                                                                                than those governing similar domestic actions (the principle of
                                                                                equivalence) and that they do not render practically impossible
                                                                                or excessively difficult the exercise of rights conferred by
                                                                                Community law (the principle of effectiveness). In addition, the
                                                                                national court must consider whether such evidence must be
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                           excluded in order to avoid measures incompatible with com-
                                                                                pliance with fundamental rights, in particular the right to a fair
                                                                                hearing before a tribunal as laid down in Article 6(1) of the
                             (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
                                                                                Fundamental Freedoms.
                            of 10 April 2003
in Case C-276/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                    (1 ) OJ C 275 of 29.9.2001.
     the Amtsgericht Schleswig): Joachim Steffensen (1)
(Directive 89/397/EEC — Official control of foodstuffs —
Second subparagraph of Article 7(1) — Analysis of samples
— Right to a second opinion — Direct effect — Admissibility
of the results of analyses as evidence in the event of an
         infringement of the right to a second opinion)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                             (2003/C 135/08)
                     (Language of the case: German)                                                     (First Chamber)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                                  of 10 April 2003
                      in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             in Case C-114/02: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v French Republic ( 1)
In Case C-276/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Amtsgericht Schleswig (Germany) for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court against                  (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Joachim Steffensen, on the interpretation of the second                      Directive 98/8/EC — Failure to transpose within the pre-
subparagraph of Article 7(1) of Council Directive 89/397/EEC                                             scribed period)
of 14 June 1989 on the official control of foodstuffs (OJ 1989
L 186, p. 23), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
                                                                                (2003/C 135/09)
M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans
(Rapporteur), P. Jann, S. von Bahr and A. Rosas, Judges; C. Stix-
Hackl, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Adminis-                                         (Language of the case: French)
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 April
2003, in which it has ruled:
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
1.    The second subparagraph of Article 7(1) of Council Directive                               in the European Court Reports)
      89/397/EEC of 14 June 1989 on the official control of
      foodstuffs is to be construed as meaning that a manufacturer
      may rely on a right to a second opinion based on that article
      against the competent authorities of a Member State where              In Case C-114/02, Commission of the European Communities
      those authorities claim that his products fail to meet the             (Agent: L. Ström) v French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues
      standard required by the national rules on foodstuffs on the           and E. Puisais): Application for a declaration that, by failing to
      basis of an analysis of samples of those products taken from           adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative measures
      retail outlets.                                                        necessary to comply with Directive 98/8/EC of the European
                                                                             Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning
2.    It is for the national court before which an action such as that       the placing of biocidal products on the market (OJ 1998
      at issue in the main proceedings has been brought to assess, in        L 123, p. 1), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its


title: Case F-147/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 19 July 2016 — Meyrl v Parliament (Civil Service — Member of the temporary staff — Termination of employment — Right to be heard)

text:
               3.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 364/40

      Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 19 July 2016 — Meyrl v Parliament
      (Case F-147/15) (1)

      ((Civil Service - Member of the temporary staff - Termination of employment - Right to be heard))
      (2016/C 364/49)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Sonja Meyrl (Bruxelles, Belgique) (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: V. Montebello-Demogeot and M. Dean, agents)

         Re:

      Application for annulment of the decision terminating the applicant’s contract.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Tribunal:

                  1.

                  Annuls the decision du 24 February 2015 to terminate the employment contract of Ms Sonja Meyrl, adopted by the Co-president of the political group ‘Greens/European Free Alliance’, as an authority of the European Parliament authorised to conclude employment contracts;

                  2.

                  Orders the European Parliament to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Ms Meyrl.

         (1)  OJ C 68, 22.2.2016, p. 46.


title: Case T-403/04: Action brought on 1 October 2004 by Sumitomo Chemical (UK) PLC against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               22.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/29

         Action brought on 1 October 2004 by Sumitomo Chemical (UK) PLC against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-403/04)
   (2005/C 19/61)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 1 October 2004 by Sumitomo Chemical (UK) PLC, London, (United Kingdom), represented by K. Van Maldegem and C. Mereu, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Order the defendant to respond to the applicant's request;

               —

               Or, in the alternative, order the annulment of the European Commission's act D 341571(04);

               —

               Order the defendant to compensate the applicant in the provisional amount of 1 euro for damages suffered as a result of the defendant's failure to comply with its obligations under Community law by failing to respond to the applicant, or, in the alternative, as a result of the European Commission's act D 341571(04), as well as any applicable interests, pending the exact calculation and determination of the exact amount;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay all costs and expenses in these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law invoked are similar to those invoked in Case T-400/04, Arch Chemicals and Arch Timber Protection/Commission.