title: Action brought on 14 June 1996 by Catherine Presle against the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop) (Case T-93/96)

text:
10 . 8 . 96           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 233/21
principles of equality of treatment between candidates and           The applicant argues, first, that in view of the special needs
of the duty to have regard for the welfare and interests of          of the service for which he was appointed, it was necessary
officials . The administration is bound, therefore, to ensure        to recruit a candidate with proven professional experience
that the tests are held in a regular manner and, in the event        enabling him to be immediately operational. The applicant
that an irregularity or incident is found to have occurred, to       maintains that those special needs justify the application of
draw up a report for the competition selection board .               Article 31 (2 ) of the Staff Regulations and, consequently, his
                                                                     own recruitment to grade C 4 .
The applicant maintains that, since in the present case the
administration has failed to establish that she did not hand         Secondly, the applicant argues that, in assessing the
in the form containing her answer to thé third written test in       professional experience of the candidates in application of
the competition, that form must be deemed to have been               paragraph IV 'conditions of employment' of the notice of
handed in . She considers that, having failed to produce any         competition, the appointing authority acted contrary to the
evidence to the contrary, the defendant cannot refuse to             principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination, and
admit her to the second part of the written tests on the             in breach of its duty to protect legitimate expectations, by
ground that she did not take part in all the tests in the first      using different criteria in the case of the first two persons
part .                                                               placed on the list of suitable candidates (who were recruited
                                                                     to grade C 4 ) from those applied in the applicant's case .
The applicant accordingly pleads that the contested decision
was adopted in breach of the duty to have regard for the             Lastly, the applicant asserts that the contested decision is
welfare and interests of officials and the right to a fair           vitiated by the failure to state relevant reasons or, at the very
hearing, and that it is vitiated by a manifest error.                least, failure to give sufficient reasons, in so far as the
                                                                     Parliament did not disclose the criteria used by the
                                                                     appointing authority to assess whether the applicant's
                                                                     qualifications warranted an appointment to the higher
                                                                     grade in his career bracket.
Action brought on 13 June 1996 by Roberto Monaco
               against the European Parliament
                        ( Case T-92/96 )
                          ( 96/C 233/36 )                            Action brought on 14 June 1996 by Catherine Presle against
                                                                     the European Centre for the Development of Vocational
                                                                                Training ( Cedefop )
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                ( Case T-93/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 233/37 )
An action against the European Parliament was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 13 June 1996 by Roberto Monaco,                                       (Language of the case: German)
residing at Capellen ( Luxembourg ), represented by
Jean-Noël Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of             An action against the European Centre for the Development
the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg          of Vocational Training ( Cedefop ) was brought before the
at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 1 Rue Glesener.             Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                      14 June 1 996 by Catherine Presle, of Berlin, represented by
The applicant claims that the Court should :                         Frank Montag, Rechtsanwalt, of Deringer Tessin Herrmann
                                                                     &C Sedemund, 13 Place des Barricades, Brussels .
— annul the Parliament's decision of 22 August 1995 in so
     far as it appoints the applicant to grade C 5 ,                 The applicant claims that the Court should :
— order the Parliament to pay the costs .                            — annul the decision of the Director of the European
                                                                          Centre for the Development of Vocational Training
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                       ( Cedefop ) of 22 May 1996 ,
The applicant entered the service of the European                    — order the European Centre for the Development of
Parliament in 1980 as a skilled employee in grade D 3 and                 Vocational Training ( Cedefop ) to pay the costs .
was subsequently promoted to grade D 2 ( in 1982 ) and then
to grade D 1 ( in 1991 ). He took part in open competition           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
PE/115/C, organized for the purpose of constituting a
reserve for the recruitment of clerical assistants ( grades C 4      The applicant is an official of the European Centre for the
and C 5 ), and was placed third on the list of successful            Development of Vocational Training ( Cedefop ), the seat of
candidates . By decision of 25 August 1995 , he was                  which was moved on 1 September 1995 from Berlin to
appointed to grade C 5 in the clerical assistant career              Thessaloniki . In the course of the implementation of the
bracket. He contests that decision, maintaining that he               accompanying measures adopted for the organization of the
should have been appointed to grade C 4 .                             social aspects of the move , employees who were unable for
 ---pagebreak--- No C 233/22            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       10 . 8 . 96
personal reasons to move with the Centre to Thessaloniki              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
were offered the possibility of secondment for a limited
period of time . Those employees included the applicant,
who, owing to her personal and family situation , was                 The Directive which is the subject of the present action
placed, initially for 10 months, at the disposal of the               provides, inter alia, that the telecommunication
Representative Office of the European Parliament in Berlin .          infrastructures available to operators other than
The applicant states that her husband works as a                      telecommunications organizations should be liberalized
self-employed lawyer and that they have been living,                  from 1 July 1 996 , ahead of the date set for full liberalization ,
together with their two children aged two and six, in Berlin .        1 January 1998 . Furthermore , the Directive provides that
Her application for an extension of her secondment beyond             the burden arising from the provision of universal service
30 June 1996 was rejected by the contested decision of the            obligations should be borne by the undertakings providing
Director of Cedefop of 22 May 1996 . That decision , which            public telecommunications networks .
was notified to the applicant on 29 May 1996 , required her
to take up her duties on 1 July 1996 with the European
Centre for the Development of Vocational Training                     The applicant is the only firm which enjoys in Italy exclusive
( Cedefop ) in Thessaloniki .                                         rights in the field in question, which must be abolished
                                                                      according to the contested Directive , conferred on it by an
By her action , the applicant is seeking the annulment of the         Agreement concluded in 1984 with the Minister for Post
contested decision of 22 May 1996 . She complains , first, of         and Telecommunications . It is also the only undertaking
the refusal to extend her secondment in Berlin and seeks an           which provides a public telecommunications network and,
extension of her temporary secondment there until such                as such , is the only one concerned by the national scheme
time as she is able to avail herself of the interinstitutional        concerning provision of universal service obligations .
mobility afforded by Article 29 ( 1 ) ( c ) of the Staff              Moreover, the latter obligations are significantly more
Regulations of officials . In addition , she complains of the         onerous for the applicant than in other Member States
order requiring her to take up her duties with the European           inasmuch as the particular oreography of Italy requires the
Centre for the Development of Vocational Training                     setting up and maintenance of special operations in order to
( Cedefop ) in Thessaloniki on 1 July 1996 .                          be able to offer to all citizens a voice telephony service at an
                                                                      affordable price .
The further pleas in law and main arguments are the same as
those in Case T-85 /96 .
                                                                      In the view of the applicant, the contested Articles should be
                                                                      annulled on the grounds of their inadequate statement of
                                                                      reasons, lack of competence of the Commission under
                                                                      Article 90 ( 3 ) of the EC Treaty, abuse of process ,
                                                                      infringement of the principle of proportionality between the
Action brought on 17 June 1996 by Telecom Italia SpA                  objective pursued and the means used to attain it,
  against the Commission of the European Communities                  infringement of the principle of legal certainty and of the
                                                                      protection of legitimate expectations, infringement of the
                         ( Case T-96/ 96 )                            general principle of institutional balance and, finally,
                           ( 96/C 233/38 )                            infringement of the fundamental right to property,
                                                                      enshrined in the European Convention on Human
                (Language of the case: Italian)                       Rights .
An action against the Commission of the European                      The applicant maintains in particular that :
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 17 June 1996 by
Telecom Italia SpA, whose registered office is in Turin ,             — the defendant has infringed the provisions laid down by
                                                                          the Council in its resolutions on the timetable for
represented by Mario Siragusa , of the Rome Bar, Giuseppe
Scassellati-Sforzolini , of the Bologna Bar, and Matteo Bay,              liberalization and encroached on the powers of the
of the Milan Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg               Council itself and the European Parliament under
at the Chambers of Elvinger, Hoss & Prussen .                             Article 100a of the EC Treaty on the harmonization of
                                                                          the financing scheme of universal service costs ,
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                      — only Article 86 and Regulation 17/62 should be applied
— annul      Article    2     (2 ) of  Commission      Directive          with regard to the conduct of undertakings rather than
    96/1 9/EC ( 1 ), inasmuch as it provides for the early                Article 90 which, by definition, concerns State
                                                                          measures ,
    liberalization of alternative infrastructures , and
    Article 4c thereof inasmuch as it requires Member States
    to establish a financing scheme of universal service              — there are other means of attaining the objectives of the
    obligations to be entrusted exclusively to undertakings               Commission , either by the full liberalization of the
    providing telecommunications networks ,                               telecommunication markets , in particular by amending
                                                                          Directive 92/44 , applying Article 86 to those
— order the defendant to pay the costs .                                  undertakings found to be abusing their position, or by


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) 11 July 2002 in Case C-139/00: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 89/369/EEC — Atmospheric pollution — Municipal waste incineration plants on the island of La Palma)

text:
C 233/6                  EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                             28.9.2002
National legislation retroactively curtailing the period within which        1.     Article 6 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3118/93 of
repayment may be sought of sums paid by way of VAT collected in                     25 October 1993 laying down the conditions under which
breach of provisions with direct effect of Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC               non-resident carriers may operate national road haulage services
of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member                       within a Member State precludes national provisions of a host
States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added                    Member State which entail the latter levying vehicle tax on the
tax: uniform basis of assessment, such as those in Article 11A(1), is               use of motor vehicles for the carriage of goods by road on the
incompatible with the principles of effectiveness and of the protection             ground that those vehicles have their regular base in the territory
of legitimate expectations.                                                         of that host Member State, when they are registered in the
                                                                                Member State of establishment and are used in the host
                                                                                Member State to carry out cabotage by road, in accordance
( 1) OJ C 122 of 29.4.2000.                                                         with authorisations lawfully issued by the Member State of
                                                                                establishment.
                                                                             2.     Article 5 of Council Directive 93/89/EEC of 25 October 1993
                                                                                on the application by Member States of taxes on certain vehicles
                                                                                used for the carriage of goods by road and tolls and charges for
                                                                                the use of certain infrastructures precludes national provisions
                                                                                of a host Member State, within the meaning of Article 1(1) of
                                                                                Regulation No 3118/93, which entail the levying by the latter
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                             of vehicle tax on the use of motor vehicles for the carriage of
                                                                                goods by road on the ground that those vehicles have their
                                                                                regular base in the territory of that host Member State, when
                             2 July 2002
                                                                                they are registered and the tax referred to in Article 3(1) of that
                                                                                directive has been paid in the Member State of establishment
in Case C-115/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                           and those vehicles are used in the host Member State for
the Finanzgericht Münster): Andreas Hoves Internationa-                             cabotage by road, in accordance with authorisations lawfully
      ler Transport-Service Sàrl v Finanzamt Borken (1)                             issued by the Member State of establishment.
(Transport of goods by road — Tax on motor vehicles —                        (1 ) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000.
                   Member State of registration)
                           (2002/C 233/09)
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                                                       (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                11 July 2002
In Case C-115/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Finanzgericht Münster (Germany) for a preliminary                  in Case C-139/00: Commission of the European Communi-
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between                                       ties v Kingdom of Spain (1)
Andreas Hoves Internationaler Transport-Service Sàrl and
Finanzamt Borken, on the interpretation of Article 6 of Council              (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Regulation (EEC) No 3118/93 of 25 October 1993 laying                        Directive 89/369/EEC — Atmospheric pollution — Munici-
down the conditions under which non-resident carriers may                        pal waste incineration plants on the island of La Palma)
operate national road haulage services within a Member State
(OJ 1993 L 279, p. 1) and Article 5 of Council Directive 93/
89/EEC of 25 October 1993 on the application by Member                                                   (2002/C 233/10)
States of taxes on certain vehicles used for the carriage of
goods by road and tolls and charges for the use of certain
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
infrastructures (OJ 1993 L 279, p. 32), the Court, composed
of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, P. Jann, F. Macken,
N. Colneric and S. von Bahr (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gul-                (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
mann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet,                                             in the European Court Reports)
M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen, V. Skouris and
J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advo-
cate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the
Registrar has given a judgment on 2 July 2002, in which it has               In Case C-139/00, Commission of the European Communities
ruled:                                                                       (Agent: G. Valero Jordana) v Kingdom of Spain (Agent: N. Díaz
 ---pagebreak--- 28.9.2002              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 233/7
Abad): Application for a declaration that, by failing to take the                     —      have not given prior approval for the sampling and
measures necessary in order to ensure, as regards the three                                  measurement procedures and have not determined
incineration furnaces installed at Mazo and Barlovento on the                                the location of the measurement points concerned;
island of La Palma (Spain), the application of:
                                                                                —      have not laid down any measurement programme;
—    Article 2 of Council Directive 89/369/EEC of 8 June                        —     Article 7 of that directive, inasmuch as those furnaces are
     1989 on the prevention of air pollution from new                                 not equipped with auxiliary burners, which would make it
     municipal waste incineration plants (OJ 1989 L 163,                              possible to maintain the minimum combustion tempera-
     p. 32), inasmuch as those furnaces are operating without                         ture of 850C, particularly during start-up and shut-down
     the required prior authorisation:                                                operations,
                                                                                the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                                that directive;
—    Article 6 of that directive, inasmuch as, with regard to
     those furnaces, the competent authorities
                                                                          2.    Dismisses the remainder of the action;
                                                                          3.    Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay
     —     have not taken periodic measurements in respect of                   one third of the costs and the Kingdom of Spain two thirds of
           the parameters prescribed by that article;                           the costs.
                                                                          (1 ) OJ C 192 of 8.7.2000.
     —     have not given prior approval for the sampling and
           measurement procedures and have not determined
           the location of the measurement points concerned;
     —     have not laid down any measurement programme;
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
—    Article 7 of that directive, inasmuch as those furnaces are
     not equipped with auxiliary burners, which would make                                           (Sixth Chamber)
     it possible to maintain the minimum combustion tem-
     perature of 850oC, particularly during start-up and shut-
     down operations,                                                                                9 July 2002
                                                                          in Case C-181/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under           the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo): Flightline Ltd v
that directive, the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann,          Secretário de Estado dos Transportes e Communicações,
President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward and C.W.A. Timmer-                        Transportes Aéreos Portugueses SA (TAP) ( 1)
mans (Rapporteur), Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; H. von
Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 July
2002, in which it:                                                        (Articles 3(2) and 4(1)(a) and (d) of Regulation (EEC)
                                                                          No 2408/92 — Imposition of public service obligations
                                                                          on scheduled air services serving a peripheral region —
                                                                          Compatibility with Member States’ power to restrict cabo-
                                                                          tage until 1 April 1997 — Interpretation of Article 1(e) of
1.   Declares that, by failing to adopt the measures necessary in                                  Decision 94/698/EC)
     order to ensure, as regards the three incineration furnaces
     installed at Mazo and Barlovento on the island of La Palma,
     the application of:                                                                              (2002/C 233/11)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Portuguese)
     —     Article 6 of Council Directive 89/369/EEC of 8 June
           1989 on the prevention of air pollution from new               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
           municipal waste incineration plants, inasmuch as, with                              in the European Court Reports)
           regard to those furnaces, the competent authorities
           —     have not taken periodic measurements in respect of       In Case C-181/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
                 the parameters prescribed by that article;               EC by the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) for a


title: Case C-555/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal du travail de Charleroi, Section de Charleroi, by order of that Court of 15 December 2003 in the case of Magali Warbecq against RYANAIR Ltd, a company incorporated under Irish law

text:
21.2.2004              EN                      Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 47/25
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Ufficio del                  2.    Which place should be considered as the place where or
Giudice di Pace di Gorizia by order of that Court of                         from which such an employee in fact performs most of
27 November 2003 in the case of Azienda Agricola                             his duties for his employer when the duties under the
                  Tomadin Silvano and AGEA                                   contract of employment are to be performed partly on
                                                                             the ground (airport) of a Contracting State and partly
                         (Case C-554/03)                                     on an aircraft which has the nationality of another
                                                                             Contracting State which also recruited the employee?
                          (2004/C 47/41)
                                                                       (1) OJ L 12, 16.1.2001, p. 1.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Ufficio del Giudice di
Pace di Gorizia (Magistrate, Gorizia) of 27 November 2003,
received at the Court Registry on 29 December 2003, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Azienda Agricola Tomadin
Silvano and AGEA on the following question:
Must Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 856/84 (1) of 31 March           Action brought on 8 January 2004 by the Commission
1984 and Articles 1 to 4 of Regulation No 3950/921 (2) of              of the European Communities against the Republic of
28 December 1992 be interpreted as meaning that the                                                  Austria
additional levy on milk and milk products is in the nature of
an administrative penalty with the result that producers are                                     (Case C-4/04)
liable to pay it only where quantities allocated have been
exceeded by them intentionally or as a result of negligence?
                                                                                (2004/C 47/43)
(1) OJ L 90, 1.4.1984, p. 10.
(2) OJ L 405, 31.12.1992, p. 1.
                                                                       An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before
                                                                       the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 January
                                                                       2004 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                       represented by Karen Banks and Dr Claudia Schmidt, Agents,
                                                                       with an address for service in Luxembourg.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal du
travail de Charleroi, Section de Charleroi, by order of that
Court of 15 December 2003 in the case of Magali Warbecq
against RYANAIR Ltd, a company incorporated under                      The Commission claims that the Court should:
                              Irish law
                                                                       1.    declare that, by failing to adopt, or to communicate to
                         (Case C-555/03)                                     the Commission, the laws, regulations and administrative
                                                                             provisions necessary to implement Directive 98/44/EC (1)
                                                                             of the European Parliament and the Council of 6 July
                          (2004/C 47/42)                                     1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inven-
                                                                             tions, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its
                                                                             obligations under that directive; and
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Tribunal du travail de            2.    order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs of the case.
Charleroi, Section de Charleroi, of 15 December 2003, received
at the Court Registry on 24 December 2003, for a preliminary
ruling in the case of Magali Warbecq against RYANAIR Ltd, a
company incorporated under Irish law on the following
questions:                                                             Pleas in law and main arguments
1.    For the purposes of Article 19(2) of Council Regulation
      No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and               The period within which the directive was to be implemented
      the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil            expired on 30 July 2000.
      and commercial matters (1), what are the relevant criteria
      for determining the Contracting State on the territory of
      which an employee habitually performs his work, when             (1) OJ 1998 L 213, p. 13.
      that employee is employed as a member of the air crew
      of an undertaking engaged in international air passenger
      transport?


title: Judgment of the Court of Justice (Third Chamber) of 16 December 2004 in Case C-271/02: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden (Failure to fulfil obligations — Fishing — Conservation and management of resources — Measures to control fishing activity)

text:
               19.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/2

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE

   (Third Chamber)
   of 16 December 2004
   in Case C-271/02: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden (1)

   (Failure to fulfil obligations - Fishing - Conservation and management of resources - Measures to control fishing activity)
   (2005/C 45/03)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   In Case C-271/02: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: T. van Rijn and C. Tufvesson) against Kingdom of Sweden (Agents: A. Kruse and A. Falk) – action for failure to fulfil obligations under Article 226 EC, brought on 24 July 2002 – the Court of Justice (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), S. von Bahr, U. Lõhmus and A. Ó Caoimh, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General, R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 December 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing, for the years 1995 and 1996:

                           —

                           to adopt the appropriate implementing measures for using availabilities allocated to it and to proceed with the inspections and other control measures required by the applicable Community rules,

                           —

                           to adopt all effective measures to prevent availabilities' being exceeded,

                           —

                           to take all administrative or penal measures which it was required to impose against captains of vessels having violated those rules or against any other person responsible for such a violation,

                     the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 9(2) of Council Regulation No 3760/92 of 20 December 1992 establishing a Community system for fisheries and aquaculture, and Articles 2, 21(1) and (2) and 31 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy.

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 289 of 23.11.2002.


title: Case F-7/13: Action brought on 22 January 2013 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               20.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 114/47

         Action brought on 22 January 2013 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-7/13)
   2013/C 114/71
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: E. Boigelot, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision rejecting the claim against the decision taken in response to the applicant’s request, when he was posted to the Commission Delegation in Antananarivo, Madagascar, for compensation for the difficulties encountered when taking up residence in that city.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision taken by the Head of Unit within the Directorate-General for Human Resources and Security, concerning the ‘claim under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations — 0/867/11 — seeking compensation for the difficulties encountered when taking up residence in Antananarivo’, under which that claim is rejected on the ground that ‘the conditions required for such compensation for the non-pecuniary and psychological damage’ were not met since it is apparent from the facts that ‘the Delegation did all it could to resolve the problems encountered, by having additional work done in the initial accommodation and by suggesting to you, during that work, possible alternative accommodation’;

               —

               Annul the response to the applicant’s claim by which the Appointing Authority rejected his claim on the grounds that (i) ‘there has been no administrative error, and even less unlawful conduct, by the administration in this case’, that (ii) the applicant ‘has not shown even the slightest evidence of the alleged non-pecuniary and psychological damage’ and that (iii) ‘the contested decision dealt at length with the evidence of the administration’s goodwill towards the applicant’ and ‘in accordance with settled case-law, a failure to state reasons can be remedied by an adequate statement of reasons supplied at the stage of the response to the claim’, which is the case here;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay, in respect of compensation for the applicant’s non-pecuniary and psychological damage, provisionally assessed, reserving the right to increase or decrease it during the proceedings, at EUR 30 000;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-474/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 22 October 2012 — Schiebel Aircraft GmbH v Bundesminister für Wirtschaft, Familie und Jugend

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/20

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 22 October 2012 — Schiebel Aircraft GmbH v Bundesminister für Wirtschaft, Familie und Jugend
   (Case C-474/12)
   2013/C 26/37
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Schiebel Aircraft GmbH

      Defendant: Bundesminister für Wirtschaft, Familie und Jugend

      Question referred

   Does Union law, and in particular Articles 18, 45 and 49, in conjunction with Article 346(1)(b) TFEU, preclude a national provision such as the rule applicable in the main proceedings, whereby the members of the statutorily appointed bodies or shareholders of commercial undertakings authorised to manage and represent companies wishing to carry on the business of trading in military arms and munitions and the brokering of the sale and purchase of military arms and munitions, must possess Austrian nationality, the possession of the nationality of another Member State of the EEA not being sufficient?


C 333/22              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 20.11.1999
       Removal from the register of Case C-331/98 (1)                ordered the removal from the register of Case C-345/98:
                                                                     Commission of the European Communities v Ireland.
                       (1999/C 333/50)
                                                                     (1) OJ C 327 of 24.10.1998.
By order of 21 June 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-331/98: Commission of the European
Communities v Ireland.
(1) OJ C 327 of 24.10.1998.                                                 Removal from the register of Case C-20/98 (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 333/53)
                                                                     By order of 30 June 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                     of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
       Removal from the register of Case    C-39/99 (1)              the register of Case C-20/98 (reference for a preliminary
                                                                     ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Salzburg):
                       (1999/C 333/51)                               Karl-Heinz Meinert v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Salzburg-
                                                                     Umgebung.
By order of 22 June 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-39/99: Commission of the European             (1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998.
Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland.
(1) OJ C 86 of 27.3.1999.
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-106/99 (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 333/54)
       Removal from the register of Case C-345/98 (1)                By order of 5 July 1999 the President of the Court of Justice of
                                                                     the European Communities has ordered the removal from the
                       (1999/C 333/52)                               register of Case C-106/99: Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities v Portuguese Republic.
By order of 29 June 1999 the President of the Fourth Chamber
of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has              (1) OJ C 160 of 5.6.1999.


title: Case T-199/14: Order of the General Court of 6 September 2016 — Vanbreda Risk & Benefits v Commission (Non-contractual liability — Public service contracts — Agreement on the amounts of compensation calculated in respect of loss — No need to adjudicate — Costs)

text:
               19.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 475/16

         Order of the General Court of 6 September 2016 — Vanbreda Risk & Benefits v Commission
   (Case T-199/14) (1)

   ((Non-contractual liability - Public service contracts - Agreement on the amounts of compensation calculated in respect of loss - No need to adjudicate - Costs))
   (2016/C 475/25)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Vanbreda Risk & Benefits (Antwerp, Belgium) (represented: initially by P. Teerlinck and P. de Bandt, and subsequently by P. Teerlinck, P. de Bandt and R. Gherghinaru, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by S. Delaude and L. Cappelletti, and subsequently by S. Delaude, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application, first, for annulment of the decision of 30 January 2014 by which the Commission rejected the tender submitted by the applicant for Lot No 1 in the call for tenders OIB.DR.2/PO/2013/062/591, relating to insurance cover for property and persons (OJ 2013/S 155-269617), and awarded that lot to another company and, second, for damages.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

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

               2.

               The European Commission shall bear its own costs and pay the costs of Vanbreda Risk & Benefits incurred in the main proceedings and in the proceedings for interim measures before the General Court.

      (1)  OJ C 159, 26.5.2014.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 April 2004 in Case C-17/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof): Finanzamt Sulingen v Walter Sudholz (Sixth VAT Directive — Articles 2 and 3 of Decision 2000/186/EC — Flat-rate limit on the right to deduct VAT on vehicles not used solely for business purposes — Retroactive authorisation of a national tax measure)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/5

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 29 April 2004
   in Case C-17/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof): Finanzamt Sulingen v Walter Sudholz (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Articles 2 and 3 of Decision 2000/186/EC - Flat-rate limit on the right to deduct VAT on vehicles not used solely for business purposes - Retroactive authorisation of a national tax measure)
   (2004/C 118/10)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-17/01: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC from the Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court) (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Finanzamt Sulingen and Walter Sudholz — on the validity of Articles 2 and 3 of Council Decision 2000/186/EC of 28 February 2000 authorising the Federal Republic of Germany to apply measures derogating from Articles 6 and 17 of the Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 2000 L 59, p. 12) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans and S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 April 2004, in which it has ruled:

               1.

               Examination of the procedure leading to the adoption of Council Decision 2000/186/EC of 28 February 2000 authorising the Federal Republic of Germany to apply measures derogating from Articles 6 and 17 of the Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment has disclosed no irregularity such as to affect the validity of that decision.

               2.

               Article 3 of Decision 2000/186/EC is invalid in that it provides for the authorisation granted by the Council of the European Union to the Federal Republic of Germany to have retroactive effect from 1 April 1999.

               3.

               Article 2 of Decision 2000/186 meets the substantive requirements of Article 27(1) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995, and is not invalid.

      (1)  OJ C 79, 10.3.2001.


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 8 October 2001 in Case T-236/00 R II: Gabriele Stauner and Others v European Parliament and Commission of the European Communities (Proceedings for interim relief — Framework agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the Commission of the European Communities — Article 197 EC — Articles 108 and 109 of the Rules of Procedure — Admissibility)

text:
C 44/14                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        16.2.2002
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                3.     The applicants shall bear their own costs and pay those of the
                                                                                Council.
                      of 19 September 2001                                4.     The Commission shall bear its own costs.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.2000 and OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000.
in Cases T-54/00 and T-73/00: Federación de Cofradı́as de
Pescadores de Guipúzcoa and Others v Council of the
                        European Union (1)
(Fisheries — Conservation of marine resources — Exchange
of fishing quotas — Transfer of anchovy fishing quota
                                                                          ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
allocated to Portugal — Application for annulment —
                                                                                INSTANCE
            Objection of illegality — Admissibility)
                                                                                of 8 October 2001
                          (2002/C 44/25)
                                                                          in Case T-236/00 R II: Gabriele Stauner and Others v
                                                                          European Parliament and Commission of the European
                    (Language of the case: Spanish)                                                   Communities
                                                                          (Proceedings for interim relief — Framework agreement
                                                                          on relations between the European Parliament and the
                                                                          Commission of the European Communities — Article 197
                                                                          EC — Articles 108 and 109 of the Rules of Procedure —
In Case T-54/00: Federación de Cofradı́as de Pescadores de                                           Admissibility)
Guipúzcoa, established in San Sebastián (Spain), Federación de
Cofradı́as de Pescadores de Vizcaya, established in Bilbao
(Spain), Federación de Cofradı́as de Pescadores de Cantabria,                                       (2002/C 44/26)
established in Santander (Spain), and 59 other applicants and
Case T-73/00: Nicólas Martı́nez Rey y otro CB, established                                   (Language of the case: German)
in Ares, La Coruña (Spain), Porvenir Número Cuatro, SL,
established in Riviera, La Coruña (Spain), and Hermanos Deza,
SL, established in Sanxenxo, Pontevedra (Spain), represented
by J.R. Garcı́a-Gallardo Gil-Fournier and D. Domı́nguez Pérez,            In Case T-236/00 R II: Gabriele Stauner, residing in Wolfrats-
lawyers, against Council of the European Union (Agents:                   hausen (Germany), Freddy Blak, residing in Næstved (Den-
J. Carbery, I. Diez Parra and M. Sims-Robertson), supported by            mark), Heide Rühle, residing in Stuttgart (Germany), Esko
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: T. van                    Olavi Seppänen, residing in Helsinki (Finland), Bart Staes,
Rijn and J. Guerra Fernández) — application, in both cases, for          residing in Antwerp (Belgium), Members of the European
the annulment of the ninth heading of Annex I D of Council                Parliament, represented by J. Sedemund and T. Lübbig, lawyers,
Regulation (EC) No 2742/1999 of 17 December 1999, fixing                  with an address for service in Luxembourg, against European
for 2000 the fishing opportunities and associated conditions              Parliament (Agents: C. Pennera and M. Berger) and the
for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in          Commission of European Communities (Agents: U. Wölker
Community waters and, for Community vessels, in waters                    and X. Lewis) — application brought under Articles 108 and
where limitations in catch are required, and amending Regu-               109 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance
lation (EC) No 66/98 (OJ L 341, 1999, p. 1) and, second,                  for, first, the suspension of operation of points 3.2, first indent,
annulment of point 1.1, (i) of Annex IV of Council Regulation             and 3.3 of Annex III to the Framework Agreement on Relations
(EC) No 685/95 of 27 March 1995 on the management of the                  between the European Parliament and the Commission con-
fishing effort relating to certain Community fishing areas and            cluded on 5 July 2000 between the European Parliament and
resources (OJ L 71, 1995, p. 5) &mdash, the Court of First                the Commission of the European Communities (OJ C 121,
Instance (Third Chamber), composed of J. Azizi, President,                2001, p. 122) and, secondly, for the adoption of other interim
K. Lenaerts and M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an            measures — the President of the Court of First Instance made
order on 19 September 2001, the operative part of which is                an order on 8 October 2001, the operative part of which is as
as follows:                                                               follows:
                                                                          1.     The application for interim relief is dismissed.
1.    The actions in Cases T-54/00 and Case T-73/00 are to be
      joined for the purposes of the order.
                                                                          2.     Costs are reserved.
2.    The actions are dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.


title: Case T-32/06: Action brought on  27 January 2006  — Justerini & Brooks Limited v OHIM

text:
               22.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/15

         Action brought on 27 January 2006 — Justerini & Brooks Limited v OHIM
   (Case T-32/06)
   (2006/C 96/29)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Justerini & Brooks Limited (London, United Kingdom) [represented by: B. Cordery, Solicitor]

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Elia Canelo Gutierrez (Talavera de la Reina, Spain)
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 23 November 2005 (Case R 36/2005-2) relating to Opposition Proceedings No. B 605 461, notification of which was received on 30 November 2005;

               —

               order the OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘J&B’ for goods and services in classes 14, 18, 21, 25, 33 and 43 (Community trade mark application No 2 696 383)
   Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Elia Canelo Gutierrez

      Mark or sign cited: International figurative trade mark ‘JOB’ for goods in class 33 (registration No 275 247)
   Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejects opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annuls the contested decision and remits the case to the Opposition Division for further prosecution

      Pleas in law: Violation of Articles 8(1)(b), 8(2)(iii) and 73 of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 and of procedural requirements, as contained in various rules of the Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95.


title: Case T-352/13 P: Judgment of the General Court of 23 April 2015 — BX v Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Recruitment — Notice of competition — Open competition — Constitution of a reserve pool of Administrators (AD 5) of Bulgarian and Romanian citizenship in the field of Law — Selection board’s decision not to include the appellant on the reserve list — Burden of proof — Comparative assessment — Equal treatment — Stability in the composition of the selection board — Fifth paragraph of Article 3 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations — Distortion of the facts and evidence — Action for damages — Decision as to costs)

text:
               8.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/14

         Judgment of the General Court of 23 April 2015 — BX v Commission
   (Case T-352/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Civil service - Recruitment - Notice of competition - Open competition - Constitution of a reserve pool of Administrators (AD 5) of Bulgarian and Romanian citizenship in the field of Law - Selection board’s decision not to include the appellant on the reserve list - Burden of proof - Comparative assessment - Equal treatment - Stability in the composition of the selection board - Fifth paragraph of Article 3 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations - Distortion of the facts and evidence - Action for damages - Decision as to costs))
   (2015/C 190/16)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: BX (Washington, United States) (represented by: R. Rata, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 24 April 2013, in BX v Commission (F 88/11, ECR-SC, EU:F:2013:51), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Mr BX to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in the course of the present proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 252, 31.8.2013.


title: Case T-408/09: Judgment of the General Court of 24 May 2011 — ancotel v OHIM — Acotel (ancotel.) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark ‘ancotel’ — Earlier Community figurative mark ‘ACOTEL’ — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Relevant public)

text:
               9.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 204/21

         Judgment of the General Court of 24 May 2011 — ancotel v OHIM — Acotel (ancotel.)
   (Case T-408/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark ‘ancotel’ - Earlier Community figurative mark ‘ACOTEL’ - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Relevant public)
   2011/C 204/37
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: ancotel GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: H. Truelsen, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Schäffner, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Acotel SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented initially by D. De Simone and D. Demarinis, lawyers, and subsequently by D. De Simone, D. Demarinis and J. Wrede, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 June 2009 (Case R 1385/2008-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Acotel SpA and ancotel GmbH.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 19 June 2009 (Case R 1385/2008-1);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by ancotel GmbH;

               3.

               Orders Acotel SpA to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 312, 19.12.2009.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 23 March 2000 in Case C-208/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Potsdam): Berliner Kindl Brauerei AG v Andreas Siepert (Approximation of laws — Consumer credit — Directive 87/102 — Scope — Contracts of guarantee — Not covered)

text:
C 149/8                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          27.5.2000
Protodikio Athinon, Greece, for a preliminary ruling in the                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
proceedings pending before that court between, on the one
hand, Dionisios Diamantis and, on the other hand, Elliniko
Dimosio and Organismos Ikonomikis Anasinkrotisis Epikhiri-                                            (Fifth Chamber)
seon AE (OAE) — on the interpretation of Articles 25 and
29 of the Second Council Directive 77/91/EEC of 13 Decem-
ber 1976 on coordination of safeguards which, for the                                                of 23 March 2000
protection of the interests of members and others, are required
by Member States of companies within the meaning of the
second paragraph of Article 58 of the Treaty, in respect of
the formation of public limited liability companies and the                 in Case C-208/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                            the Landgericht Potsdam): Berliner Kindl Brauerei AG v
maintenance and alteration of their capital, with a view to
making such safeguards equivalent (OJ 1977 L 26, p. 1) and                                          Andreas Siepert (1)
on the abuse of a right arising from those provisions — the
Court, composed of: R. Schintgen, President of the Second
Chamber, acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber,                     (Approximation of laws — Consumer credit — Directive
P.J.G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur), G. Hirsch, H. Ragnemalm and                    87/102 — Scope — Contracts of guarantee — Not covered)
V. Skouris, Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
23 March 2000, in which it has ruled:                                                                 (2000/C 149/13)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
Community law does not preclude national courts from applying a
provision of national law which enables them to determine whether a
right deriving from a Community law provision is being abused.
However, in making that determination, it is not permissible to deem        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
a shareholder relying on Article 25(1) of the Second Directive                                 in the European Court Reports)
77/91/EEC of 13 December 1976 on coordination of safeguards
which, for the protection of the interests of members and others, are
required by Member States of companies within the meaning of the            In Case C-208/98: Reference to the Court under Article 177 of
second paragraph of Article 58 of the Treaty, in respect of the             the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Landgericht
formation of public limited liability companies and the maintenance         Potsdam (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
and alteration of their capital, with a view to making such safeguards      pending before that court between Berliner Kindl Brauerei AG
equivalent, to be abusing his rights under that provision merely            and Andreas Siepert, on the interpretation of Council Directive
because he is a minority shareholder of a company subject to                87/102/EEC of 22 December 1986 for the approximation of
reorganisation measures, or has benefited from reorganisation of the        the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the
company, or has not exercised his right of pre-emption, or was              Member States concerning consumer credit (OJ 1987 L 42,
among the shareholders who asked for the company to be placed               p. 48) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: J.C.
under the scheme applicable to companies in serious difficulties, or        Moitinho de Almeida, President of the Sixth Chamber, acting
has allowed a certain period of time to elapse before bringing his          for the President of the Fifth Chamber, L. Sevón (Rapporteur),
action. In contrast, Community law does not preclude national courts        C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet and M. Wathelet, Judges; P. Léger,
from applying the provision of national law concerned if, of the            Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Adminis-
remedies available for a situation that has arisen in breach of that        trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 March
provision, a shareholder has chosen a remedy that will cause such           2000, in which it has ruled:
serious damage to the legitimate interests of others that it appears
manifestly disproportionate.
                                                                            On a proper construction of Council Directive 87/102/EEC of
                                                                            22 December 1986 for the approximation of the laws, regulations
                                                                            and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning
                                                                            consumer credit, it does not cover a contract of guarantee for
                                                                            repayment of credit where neither the guarantor nor the borrower was
(1) OJ C 7 of 10.1.1998.                                                    acting in the course of his trade or profession.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 234 of 25.7.1998.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 September 2000 in Case C-193/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sedgefield Magistrates' Court): Criminal proceedings against Graeme Edgar Hume (Social legislation relating to road transport — Weekly rest period — Postponement)

text:
25.11.2000              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 335/15
2.    Orders Ireland to pay the costs.                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fourth Chamber)
(1) OJ C 6 of 8.1.2000.
                                                                                of 3 October 2000
                                                                         in Case C-371/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                         the Tribunale Civile e Penale di Venezia): Cinzia Gozza
                                                                         and Others v Università degli Studi di Padova and
                                                                                Others (1)
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                         (Right of establishment — Freedom to provide services —
                                                                         Doctors — Medical specialties — Training periods —
                         (First Chamber)                                                   Remuneration — Direct effect)
                      of 28 September 2000                                                          (2000/C 335/29)
in Case C-193/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Sedgefield Magistrates’ Court): Criminal proceedings
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                against Graeme Edgar Hume (1)
(Social legislation relating to road transport — Weekly rest
                     period — Postponement)                              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                         (2000/C 335/28)
                                                                         In Case C-371/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                                                                         the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunale Civile
                   (Language of the case: English)                       e Penale di Venezia (Civil and Criminal District Court, Venice),
                                                                         Italy, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
                                                                         before that court between Cinzia Gozza and Others and
In Case C-193/99: reference to the Court Article 234 EC from             Università degli Studi di Padova and Others — on the
the Sedgefield Magistrates’ Court, United Kingdom, for a                 interpretation of Council Directive 82/76/EEC of 26 January
preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings pending before            1982 amending Directive 75/362/EEC concerning the mutual
that court against Graeme Edgar Hume on the interpretation               recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of
of Article 8(5) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 of                formal qualifications in medicine, including measures to
20 December 1985 on the harmonisation of certain social                  facilitate effective exercise of the right of establishment and
legislation relating to road transport (OJ 1985 L 370, p. 1) —           freedom to provide services, and Directive 75/363/EEC con-
the Court (First Chamber), composed of: L. Sevón, President of          cerning the coordination of provisions laid down by law,
the Chamber, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and M. Wathelet, Judges;               regulation or administrative action in respect of activities of
S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a             doctors (OJ 1982 L 43, p. 21) — the Court (Fourth Chamber),
judgment on 28 September 2000, in which it has ruled:                    composed of: D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), President of the
                                                                         Chamber, A. La Pergola and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; P. Léger,
                                                                         Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has
Article 8(5) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 of                   given a judgment on 3 October 2000, in which it has ruled:
20 December 1985 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation
relating to road transport must be interpreted as meaning that a
driver who elects to postpone his weekly rest period until the week      On a proper construction of Article 2(1)(c) of Council Directive
following that in which it becomes due must take two weekly rest         75/363/EEC of 16 June 1975 concerning the coordination of
periods, consecutively and without any break between them, in that       provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in
second week.                                                             respect of activities of doctors and point 1 of the annex to that
                                                                         directive, as amended by Council Directive 82/76/EEC of 26 January
                                                                         1982 amending Directive 75/362/EEC concerning the mutual
                                                                         recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal
(1) OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999.                                               qualifications in medicine, including measures to facilitate effective
                                                                         exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to provide services
                                                                         and Directive 75/363, and of Article 3(2) of Directive 75/363 and
                                                                         point 2 of the annex to that directive, as amended by Directive
                                                                         82/76:


title: Case T-451/08: Action brought on 2 October 2008 — Stim v Commission

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/52

         Action brought on 2 October 2008 — Stim v Commission
   (Case T-451/08)
   (2008/C 313/93)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Föreningen Svenska Tonsättares Internationella Musikbyrå (Stim) u.p.a. (Stockholm, Sweden) (represented by: C. Thomas, Solicitor and N. Pourbaix, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Articles 3 and 4(2), and Article 4(3) to the extent that it refers to Article 3, of the Commission decision of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA in case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By means of its application the applicant seeks partial annulment of the Commission decision of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC) and in particular, of its Article 3, determining that the EEA CISAC (1) members engaged in a concerted practice in violation of Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA by coordinating the territorial delineations of the reciprocal representation mandates granted to one another in a way which limits a licence to the domestic territory of each collecting society.
   In support of its claims the applicant submits the following:
   According to the applicant the contested decision infringes Article 151(4) EC in that the Commission did not sufficiently take into account the consequences for cultural diversity in Europe in requiring termination of the alleged concerted practice on the territorial delineation of mandates granted by EEA collecting societies to other EEA collecting societies to issue licences of their repertoire for satellite, cable and internet use. Moreover, the applicant claims that the decision will harm cultural diversity in Europe, since authors of music of a less extensive cultural appeal will lose the certainty they have under the current system, that their music will be licensed and that revenues will be received in respect of all the territories in which their music may be performed.
   The applicant further submits that the Commission should have taken into account the fact that the restriction of competition it identified is fictitious or, at most, marginal. In deed, in the applicant's submission, there is no restriction of competition within the meaning of Article 81(1) EC. Hence, the applicant claims that the Commission committed an error of law, or a manifest error of appreciation, when applying the aforementioned provision. Finally, the applicant contends that the Commission could have lawfully exempted the concerted practice pursuant to Article 81(3) EC. By not doing so, it needlessly caused harm to cultural diversity in Europe.

      (1)  International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers.


title: Case T-434/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 27 November 2007 — GATEWAY v OHIM — Fujitsu Siemens Computers (ACTIVY Media Gateway) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark ACTIVY Media Gateway — Earlier Community and national word and figurative marks Gateway and GATEWAY — Relative grounds for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Absence of similarity between the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(5) of Regulation No 40/94)

text:
               12.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 8/13

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 27 November 2007 — GATEWAY v OHIM — Fujitsu Siemens Computers (ACTIVY Media Gateway)
   (Case T-434/05) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark ACTIVY Media Gateway - Earlier Community and national word and figurative marks Gateway and GATEWAY - Relative grounds for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Absence of similarity between the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 40/94)
   (2008/C 8/24)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Gateway, Inc. (Irvine, California, United States) (represented initially by: C.R. Jones and P. Massey, and subsequently by C.R. Jones and E.S. Mackenzie, solicitors)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Laporta Insa, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Fujitsu Siemens Computers GmbH (Munich, Germany)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 September 2005 (Case R 1068/2004-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Fujitsu Siemens Computers GmbH and Gateway, Inc.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Gateway, Inc., to bear its own costs and to pay those of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs).

      (1)  OJ C 60, 11.3.2006.


title: Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 October 2001 in Case C-281/00 P: Una Film "City Revue" GmbH v European Parliament and Others (Directive 98/43/EC concerning the advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products — Appeal — No need to adjudicate — Costs)

text:
C 84/32                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           6.4.2002
                     ORDER OF THE COURT                                                        ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Third Chamber)
                          (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 23 October 2001
                       of 22 November 2001
                                                                           in Case C-281/00 P: Una Film ‘City Revue’ GmbH v
                                                                                European Parliament and Others (1)
in Case C-223/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo): Director-Geral do                    (Directive 98/43/EC concerning the advertising and sponsor-
Departamento para os Assuntos do Fundo Social Europeu                      ship of tobacco products — Appeal — No need to adjudicate
   v Partex — Companhia Portuguesa de Serviços SA (1)                                                    — Costs)
                                                                                (2002/C 84/53)
          (Preliminary references — Inadmissibility)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                           (2002/C 84/52)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                  (Language of the case: Portuguese)
                                                                           In Case C-281/00 P: appeal by Una Film ‘City Revue’ GmbH,
                                                                           established in Vienna (Austria), represented by R. Borgelt,
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                           Rechtsanwalt, assisted by Professor M. Dauses, against the
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                           Communities (Third Chamber) of 27 June 2000 in Joined
                                                                           Cases T-172/98 and T-175/98 to T-177/98 Salamander and
                                                                           Others v Parliament and Council [2000] ECR II-2487, seeking
                                                                           to have that judgment set aside and the claims made by the
                                                                           applicant at first instance upheld, the other parties to the
In Case C-223/00: reference to the Court under Article 234                 proceedings being: European Parliament (Agents: C. Pennera
EC from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Supreme                       and M. Berger), Council of the European Union (Agents:
Administrative Court) for a preliminary ruling in the proceed-             R. Gosalbo Bono and S. Marquardt), Commission of the
ings pending before that court between Director-Geral do                   European Communities (Agents: U. Wölker and I. Martı́nez
Departamento para os Assuntos do Fundo Social Europeu and                  del Peral), Markenverband eV, established in Wiesbaden (Germ-
Partex- Companhia Portuguesa de Serviços SA — on the                       any), Manifattura Lane Gaetano Marzotto & Figli SpA, estab-
interpretation of Council Decision 83/516/EEC of 17 October                lished in Valdagno (Italy), Lancaster BV, established in Amster-
1983 on the tasks of the European Social Fund (OJ 1983                     dam (Netherlands), French Republic, Republic of Finland,
L 289, p. 38) and of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2950/83 of                United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,
17 October 1983 on the implementation of Decision 83/516                   Salamander AG, established in Kornwestheim (Germany), Zino
— the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: F. Macken,                       Davidoff SA, established in Fribourg (Switzerland), Davidoff &
President of the Chamber, N. Colneric, C. Gulmann,                         Cie SA, established in Geneva (Switzerland), Alma Media
J.-P. Puissochet and R. Schintgen, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate             Group Advertising SA & Co. Partnership, Panel Two and Four
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 22 Novem-               Advertising SA, Rythmos Outdoor Advertising SA and Media
ber 2001, in which it has ruled:                                           Center Advertising SA, established in Athens (Greece) — the
                                                                           Court (Third Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, acting
                                                                           for the President of the Third Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet
                                                                           (Rapporteur) and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo
The reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Supremo Tribunal        Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an
Administrativo, by decision of 10 May 1999, is inadmissible.               order on 23 October 2001, the operative part of which is as
                                                                           follows:
(1) OJ 2000 C 233.                                                         1.    There is no need to adjudicate on the appeal brought by Una
                                                                                Film ‘City Revue’ GmbH.
                                                                           2.    Una Film ‘City Revue’ GmbH, the European Parliament and
                                                                                the Council of the European Union shall bear their own costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 6.4.2002                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 84/33
3.    The Commission of the European Communities shall bear its            1.    There is no need to adjudicate on the appeal brought by Zino
      own costs.                                                                 Davidoff SA and Davidoff & Cie SA.
                                                                           2.    Zino Davidoff SA, Davidoff et Cie SA, the European Parlia-
(1) OJ C 259 of 9.9.2000.
                                                                                ment and the Council of the European Union shall bear their
                                                                                own costs.
                                                                           3.    Lancaster BV and the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties shall bear their own costs.
                    ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                           (1) OJ C 302 of 21.10.2000.
                         (Third Chamber)
                       of 23 October 2001
in Case C-313/00 P: Zino Davidoff SA v European
                    Parliament and Others (1)
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT
(Directive 98/43/EC concerning the advertising and sponsor-
ship of tobacco products — Appeal — No need to adjudicate
                                                                                (Third Chamber)
                              — Costs)
                          (2002/C 84/54)                                                           of 13 November 2001
                   (Language of the case: German)                          in Case C-430/00 P: Anton Dürbeck GmbH v Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities (1)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           (Appeals — Common organisation of the markets —
                                                                           Bananas — Importation from ACP States and third countries
                                                                           — Request for additional licences — Case of hardship —
In Case C-313/00 P: appeal by Zino Davidoff SA, established                Transitional measures — Article 30 of Regulation (EEC)
in Fribourg (Switzerland), and Davidoff & Cie SA, established              No 404/93 — Limitation of damages — Action for annul-
in Geneva (Switzerland), represented by R. Wägenbaur, Avocat,                                               ment)
against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities (Third Chamber) of 27 June 2000 in                                                (2002/C 84/55)
Joined Cases T-172/98 and T-175/98 to T-177/98 Salamander
and Others v Parliament and Council [2000] ECR II-2487,
seeking to have that judgment set aside and the claims made                                    (Language of the case: German)
by the applicants at first instance upheld, the other parties to
the proceedings being: European Parliament (Agents: C. Penn-
era and M. Berger), Council of the European Union (Agents:                 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
R. Gosalbo Bono and S. Marquardt), defendants at first                                          in the European Court Reports)
instance, Lancaster BV, established in Amsterdam (Nether-
lands), represented by B. Wägenbaur, Avocat, Commission of
the European Communities (Agents: U. Wölker and I. Martı́nez
del Peral), Markenverband eV, established in Wiesbaden (Germ-              In Case P: Anton Dürbeck GmbH, established in Frankfurt-am-
any), Manifattura Lane Gaetano Marzotto & Figli SpA, estab-                Main, represented by Dr Gert Meier, Rechtsanwalt — appeal
lished in Valdagno (Italy), French Republic, Republic of Finland,          against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,                      European Communities (Fifth Chamber) of 19 September
interveners at first instance, Salamander AG, established in               2000 in Case T-252/97 Dürbeck v Commission [2000] ECR
Kornwestheim (Germany), Una Film ‘City Revue’ GmbH,                        II-3031, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other
established in Vienna (Austria), Alma Media Group Advertising              party to the proceedings being Commission of the European
SA & Co. Partnership, Panel Two and Four Advertising                       Communities (Agents: K.-D. Borchardt and C. van der
SA, Rythmos Outdoor Advertising SA and Media Center                        Hauwert), Kingdom of Spain (Agent: R. Silva de Lapuerta) and
Advertising SA, established in Athens (Greece) — the Court                 by French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues and C. Vasak) —
(Third Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, acting for the                   the Court (Third Chamber), composed of C. Gulmann, acting
President of the Third Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur)              for the President of the Third Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet and
and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,                  J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on                General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 13 November
23 October 2001, the operative part of which is as follows:                2001, the operative part of which is as follows:


title: Case C-8/13: Order of the President of the Court of 7 May 2014  — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia, interveners: Kingdom of Belgium and Kingdom of the Netherlands

text:
               11.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/17

         Order of the President of the Court of 7 May 2014 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia, interveners: Kingdom of Belgium and Kingdom of the Netherlands
   (Case C-8/13) (1)

   2014/C 261/25
   Language of the case: Slovenian
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 63, 2.3.2013.


title: Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 February 2004 in Case C-85/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Polymeles Protodikeio Athinon): Mavrona & Sia OE v Delta Etaireia Symmetochon AE

text:
               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/17

      ORDER OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 10 February 2004
   in Case C-85/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Polymeles Protodikeio Athinon): Mavrona & Sia OE v Delta Etaireia Symmetochon AE (1)

   (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Directive 86/653/EEC - Coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents - Applicability to commercial agents)
   (2004/C 94/34)
   Language of the case: Greek
   In Case C-85/03: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC from the Polymeles Protodikeio Athinon (Greece) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Mavrona & Sia OE and Delta Etaireia Symmetochon AE — on the interpretation of Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents (OJ L 382, p. 17) Ä the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber (Rapporteur), A. La Pergola, S. von Bahr, R. Silva de Lapuerta and K. Lenaerts, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 10 February 2004, in which it has ruled:
   Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents must be interpreted as meaning that persons who act on behalf of a principal, but in their own name, do not come within the scope of that directive.

      (1)  OJ No C 112,10.5.2003