title: Action brought on 19 June 1995 by Peter Gammeltoft against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-132/95)

text:
No C 208/36           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   12 . 8 . 95
Lars Bo Rasmussen, residing at Dalheim ( Luxembourg ),                Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of
represented by Carlo Revoldini , of the Luxembourg Bar,               the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
with an address for service at the latter 's Chambers, 180            at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 1 Rue Glesener.
Route de Longwy.
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should :
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                      — annul the decision of the Commission fixing Brussels as
— annul the Commission's decision not to promote him to                    the applicant's place of recruitment, together with all
    grade A 4 in the 1992 promotions exercise and, in so far               subsequent decisions,
    as is necessary, the Commission's rejection, dated
    3 March 1995 , of his complaint and its decision to               — order the defendant to pay the costs.
    promote to grade A 4 the officials on the list published in
    Administrative     Information      Bulletin   No   859   of
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    8 September 1994 ,
                                                                      The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
— order the Commission to pay damages by way of                       in Case T-33/95 (').
    compensation for the material and non-material damage
    suffered by the applicant, further and better particulars
    of which he reserves the right to provide during the              (M OJ No C 101 , 22 . 4 . 1995 .
    proceedings,
— order the Commission to pay the costs .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                      Action brought on 3 July 1995 by Friedrich Engelking
In support of his application, the applicant pleads                   against the Council of the European Union and the
infringement of Article 45 ( 1 ) of the Staff Regulations .                     Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                ( Case T-138/95 )
In that connection he submits that the Commission was                                           ( 95/C 208/76 )
unable to take his merits as an official in grade A 5 into
consideration, since there was no staff report on him for the
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
period 1991 to 1993 .
Secondly, the applicant points out that the Commission                An action against the Council of the European Union and
compared his merits only with those of officials in                   the Commission of the European Communities was brought
Directorate-General       V     and  not  with    those  of  all      before the Court of First Instance of the European
Commission officials in grade A 5 who were eligible for               Communities on 3 July 1995 by Friedrich Engelking, of
promotion .                                                           Raddestorf, Federal Republic of Germany, represented by
                                                                      Bernd Meisterernst, Mechtild Düsing, Dietrich Manstetten,
Lastly, the applicant claims that promotions to grade A 4 are         Frank Schulze and Winfried Haneklaus , Rechtsanwälte,
not made on the basis of consideration of the comparative             Münster, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
merits of the officials eligible for promotion but on the basis       Chambers of Dupong & Associés, 14a Rue des Bains .
of priority points which each Directorate-General has at its
disposal according to the number of officials eligible for            The applicant claims that the Court should :
promotion and which it may allocate as it wishes .
                                                                       1 . order the defendants to pay the applicant SLOM-II
                                                                            compensation for the period from 2 April 1984 to
                                                                            13 June 1991 in the amount of DM 110 021,93 together
                                                                            with interest at 8 % for the period from 19 May 1992,
                                                                            and order the defendants to pay the costs of the
                                                                            proceedings;
Action brought on 19 June 1995 by Peter Gammeltoft
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                      2 . join the present application with the pending Case
                        ( Case T-132/95 )                                   T-77/93 Hülseberg and Others v. Council and
                          ( 95 /C 208/75                                    Commission and likewise stay the proceedings .
               (Language of the case: French)                         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                      The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in
An action against the Commission of the European                       Case T-20/94 .
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 19 June 1995 by
 Peter Gammeltoft, residing in Brussels, represented by


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 2 April 2001 in Case T-24/01 R: Claire Staelen v European Parliament and Council of the European Union (Application for interim relief — Officials — Non-admission to later stages of a competition — Urgency — None)

text:
28.7.2001               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 212/25
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
                             INSTANCE
                                                                          —      annul Article 1(1) and (3) and Article 3 of the Com-
                          of 2 April 2001                                        mission’s decision C(2000) 2466 final of 26 July 2000 (1),
                                                                                in so far as the Commission declares therein that the aid
                                                                                granted by Germany for project 1014, amounting to
in Case T-24/01 R: Claire Staelen v European Parliament                          DEM 701 664,50, is incompatible with the common
              and Council of the European Union                                  market;
(Application for interim relief — Officials — Non-admission               —      order the Commission to pay the costs.
     to later stages of a competition — Urgency — None)
                          (2001/C 212/47)                                 Pleas in law and main arguments
                    (Language of the case: French)                        In 1996 the applicant acquired the mobile radio products
                                                                          division of the German company FUBA Hans Kolbe & Co.
In Case T-24/01 R: Claire Staelen, member of the temporary                That company had collaborated, during the period from
staff of the European Parliament, residing in Bridel (Luxem-              1994 to 1996, in a research and development project (pro-
bourg), represented by J. Choucroun, lawyer, with an address              ject 1014) implemented by a subsidiary of the SICAN Group
for service in Luxembourg, against European Parliament                    in relation to repeater systems in the Land of Lower Saxony.
(Agents: Y. Pantalis and J.F. De Wachter) and Council of the              The Land of Lower Saxony had promoted that project by
European Union (Agents: F. Anton and A. Pilette) — appli-                 granting State aid, which the Commission held, in the contest-
cation, essentially, for an order suspending the procedure                ed decision, to be incompatible with the common market. The
recruiting successful candidates in competition EUR/A/151/98              Land thereupon demanded the return of the amount of the
to recruit French-speaking administrators, organised by the               aid.
European Parliament, and an order requiring the Parliament
and the Council, together, to produce all the minutes relating
to the tests in that competition and to reply to a number of              The applicant maintains that the defendant has committed a
questions put by the applicant — the President of the Court of            significant breach of its obligation to provide a statement of
First Instance made an order on 2 April 2001, the operative               reasons, as prescribed by Article 253 EC. It claims that, in the
part of which is as follows:                                              context of the legal assessment contained in its decision, the
                                                                          defendant devoted only three sentences to project 1014 and
1.    The application is dismissed;                                       provided no reasons whatsoever as to why the project did not
                                                                          fulfil the criteria of industrial research within the meaning of
2.    Costs are reserved.                                                 Annex I to the Community framework (2).
                                                                          Furthermore, the contested decision is contrary to
                                                                          Article 87(3)(c) EC. It wrongly concludes that project 1014
                                                                          fulfils neither the criteria of industrial research nor those of
                                                                          competitive development. The defendant was not entitled to
                                                                          deny that project 1014 involved precompetitive development
                                                                          by arguing that that project concerned the development of a
Action brought on 22 March 2001 by Huber + Suhner                         commercial repeater system. The project resulted in the
MRS GmbH against the Commission of the European                           development only of prototypes for essential components of
                            Communities                                   the repeater system. The research activities were limited to
                                                                          preparatory work, and the prototypes developed by the project
                           (Case T-68/01)                                 partners were not yet capable of being used for commercial
                                                                          purposes. Consequently, the defendant has infringed the
                                                                          Community framework by concluding that project 1014 went
                          (2001/C 212/48)                                 beyond the stage of precompetitive development.
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                          (1) OJ 2001 L 18, p. 18.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 (2) Community framework for state aid for research and development
                                                                              (OJ 1996 C 45, p. 5).
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 22 March 2001 by Huber + Suhner
MRS GmbH, of Bad Salzdetfurth (Germany), represented by
Hans-Jörg Niemeyer and Egbert Wilms, Rechtsanwälte, with
an address for service in Luxembourg.


title: Case T-92/07 P: Appeal brought on 28 March 2007 by Jacques Frankin and Others against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 16 January 2007 in Case F-3/06 Jacques Frankin and Others v Commission

text:
               26.5.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 117/31

         Appeal brought on 28 March 2007 by Jacques Frankin and Others against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 16 January 2007 in Case F-3/06 Jacques Frankin and Others v Commission

   (Case T-92/07 P)
   (2007/C 117/48)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellants: Jacques Frankin (Sorée, Belgium) and 482 other appellants (represented by F. Frabetti, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 16 January 2007 in Case F-3/06 principally concerning an action for annulment of an express decision of 10 June 2005 by which the Commission refused to grant the appellants assistance under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations;

               —

               make an order as to the costs, fees and expenses and order the Commission to pay them.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of their action, the appellants assert that by dismissing their action at first instance, the Civil Service Tribunal erred in law when examining the pleas in law relied on at first instance, alleging, first, infringement of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations and from the duty to have regard to the welfare of officials and, second, breach of the principle of non-discrimination.


title: Case T-249/15: Action brought on 3 July 2015 — JT v OHIM — Carrasco Pirard and others (QUILAPAYÚN)

text:
               12.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 337/13

         Action brought on 3 July 2015 — JT v OHIM — Carrasco Pirard and others (QUILAPAYÚN)
   (Case T-249/15)
   (2015/C 337/16)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: JT (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Mena Valenzuela, lawyer)

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

      Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Eduardo Carrasco Pirard (Santiago, Chile), Guillermo García Campos (Brussels, Belgium), Luis Hernán Gómez Larenas (Paris, France), Hugo Lagos Vásquez (Taverny, France), Ismael Oddo Méndez (Santiago, Chile), Carlos Quezada Salas (Colombes, France), Ricardo Venegas Carhart (Santiago, Chile), Sebastián Quezada (Paris, France)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

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

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘QUILAPAYÚN’ — Application for registration No 9 267 287

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 March 2015 in Case R 354/2014-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision; and

               —

               reject the application for registration of the figurative mark ‘QUILAPAYÚN’ for goods and services in Class 9 and Class 41 brought before OHIM by the applicants Eduardo Carrasco Pirard, Guillermo García Campos, Luis Hernán Gómez Larenas, Hugo Lagos Vásquez, Ismael Oddo Méndez, Carlos Quezada Salas, Ricardo Venegas Carhart and Sebastián Quezada on 16 September 2010.

      Plea in law

   Incorrect interpretation of Article 8(1)(b) and 2(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 read in conjunction with Article 6bis(1) of the Paris Convention.


title: Case T-529/14: Action brought on 14 July 2014  — adp Gauselmann v OHIM (Multi Win)

text:
               8.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 303/53

         Action brought on 14 July 2014 — adp Gauselmann v OHIM (Multi Win)
   (Case T-529/14)
   2014/C 303/63
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: adp Gauselmann GmbH (Espelkamp, Germany) (represented by P. Koch Moreno, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 April 2014 in Case R 1326/2013-1;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘Multi Win’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 28 and 41 — Community trade mark application No 1 1 2 06  364

      Decision of the Examiner: Refused the application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Rejected the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No. 207/2009


title: Joined Cases C-229/11 and C-230/11: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 November 2012 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Passau — Germany) — Alexander Heimann (C-229/11), Konstantin Toltschin (C-230/11) v Kaiser GmbH, (Social policy — Directive 2003/88/EC — Short-time working ( ‘Kurzarbeit’ ) — Reduction of paid annual leave on the basis of short-time working — Allowance in lieu)

text:
               12.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/14

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 November 2012 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Passau — Germany) — Alexander Heimann (C-229/11), Konstantin Toltschin (C-230/11) v Kaiser GmbH,
   (Joined Cases C-229/11 and C-230/11) (1)

   (Social policy - Directive 2003/88/EC - Short-time working (‘Kurzarbeit’) - Reduction of paid annual leave on the basis of short-time working - Allowance in lieu)
   2013/C 9/21
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Arbeitsgericht Passau

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Alexander Heimann (C-229/11), Konstantin Toltschin (C-230/11)

      Defendant: Kaiser GmbH,

      Re:

   References for a preliminary ruling — Arbeitsgericht Passau — Interpretation of Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (OJ 2010 C 83, p. 389) and of Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9) — Reduction in the usual hours worked in the undertaking, as a result of short-time working (‘Kurzarbeit’) — National legislation providing for a reduced entitlement to paid annual leave on the basis of the reduction in the number of working days under short-time working

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude national legislation or practice, such as a social plan agreed between an undertaking and its works council, under which the paid annual leave of a worker on short-time working is calculated according to the pro rata temporis rule.

      (1)  OJ C 269, 10.9.2011.


title: Case T-18/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 June 2008 — Marcuccio v Commission (Social Security — Application for assumption of responsibility for medical expenses — Implied rejection of the application)

text:
               19.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/18

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 June 2008 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case T-18/04) (1)

   (Social Security - Application for assumption of responsibility for medical expenses - Implied rejection of the application)
   (2008/C 183/37)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: initially A. Distante, then G. Cipressa, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and J. Curral, Agents, assisted by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)
   Re:
   First, an application for annulment of the Appointing Authority's implied decision rejecting the applicant's application of 25 November 2002 for reimbursement of 100 % of medical expenses under Article 72 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities, secondly, an application for annulment of the implied decision rejecting the applicant's complaint against the rejection of the application of 25 November 2002, thirdly, an application for a declaration of the applicant's entitlement, under Article 72 of the Staff Regulations, to reimbursement of 100 % of the medical expenses incurred in the treatment for the diseases from which he suffered and, fourthly, an application for an order that the Commission pay 100 % of those medical expenses.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the implied rejection of the application of 25 November 2002;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 71 of 20.3.2004.


title: Case C-372/06: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 December 2007 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the VAT and Duties Tribunal, London — United Kingdom) — Asda Stores Ltd v Commissioners of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (Community Customs Code — Implementing measures — Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 — Annex 11 — Non-preferential origin of goods — Television receivers — Concept of substantial processing or working — Added value test — Validity and interpretation — EEC-Turkey Association Agreement and Decision No 1/95 of the Association Council — Interpretation)

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/21

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 December 2007 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the VAT and Duties Tribunal, London — United Kingdom) — Asda Stores Ltd v Commissioners of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
   (Case C-372/06) (1)

   (Community Customs Code - Implementing measures - Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 - Annex 11 - Non-preferential origin of goods - Television receivers - Concept of substantial processing or working - Added value test - Validity and interpretation - EEC-Turkey Association Agreement and Decision No 1/95 of the Association Council - Interpretation)
   (2008/C 51/33)
   Language of the case: English
   Referring court
   VAT and Duties Tribunal, London
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Asda Stores Ltd

      Defendant: Commissioners of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — VAT and Duties Tribunal, London — Validity of Annex 11 to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1) — Criteria for determining the non-preferential origin of goods — Television receivers manufactured in Turkey incorporating cathode-ray tubes originating in China or Korea.
   Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               Examination of the first question has disclosed nothing capable of affecting the validity of the provisions in column 3 under heading 8528 of the Combined Nomenclature, mentioned in Annex 11 to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code.

               2)

               The provisions in column 3 under heading 8528 of the Combined Nomenclature, mentioned in Annex 11 to Regulation No 2454/93 must be interpreted as meaning that, in calculating the value acquired by colour television receivers on their manufacture in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, there is no cause to determine separately the non-preferential origin of a distinct part, such as a chassis.

               3)

               The provisions of Article 44 of Decision No 1/95 of the EEC-Turkey Association Council of 22 December 1995, which laid down the conditions for the entry into force of the final phase of the Customs Union, read in conjunction with those of Article 47(1) to (3) of the Additional Protocol, signed on 23 November 1970 in Brussels and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2760/72 of 19 December 1972, annexed to the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey signed at Ankara on 12 September 1963 by the Republic of Turkey, on the one part, and by the Member States of the EEC and the Community, on the other part, and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Decision 64/732/EEC of 23 December 1963, and the provisions of Articles 45 and 46 of the said Decision No 1/95 do not have direct effect before national courts and do not therefore allow individual operators validly to plead their infringement in order to resist payment of anti-dumping duties normally due. The provisions of Article 47 of Decision No 1/95 have direct effect and the individuals to whom they apply have the right to rely on them before the courts of the Member States.

               4)

               The provisions of Article 47 of Decision No 1/95 must be interpreted as not requiring that the information which the contracting parties which adopted anti-dumping measures must provide to the Customs Union Joint Committee pursuant to Article 46 of Decision No 1/95 or to the Association Council pursuant to Article 47(2) of the Additional Protocol, must be brought to the knowledge of operators.

      (1)  OJ C 294, 2.12.2006.


title: Case C-438/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 2 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Karlsruhe — Germany) — Nabiel Peter Bogendorff von Wolffersdorff v Standesamt der Stadt Karlsruhe, Zentraler Juristischer Dienst der Stadt Karlsruhe (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Citizenship of the Union — Article 21 TFEU — Freedom to move and reside in the Member States — Law of a Member State abolishing privileges and prohibiting the conferring of new noble titles — Surname of an adult, national of that State, obtained during a habitual residence in another Member State of which that person also holds the nationality — Name comprising tokens of nobility — Residence in the first Member State — Refusal by the authorities of the first Member State to enter the name acquired in the second Member State in the register of civil status — Justification — Public policy — Incompatibility with the essential principles of German law)

text:
               8.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/8

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 2 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Karlsruhe — Germany) — Nabiel Peter Bogendorff von Wolffersdorff v Standesamt der Stadt Karlsruhe, Zentraler Juristischer Dienst der Stadt Karlsruhe
   (Case C-438/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Citizenship of the Union - Article 21 TFEU - Freedom to move and reside in the Member States - Law of a Member State abolishing privileges and prohibiting the conferring of new noble titles - Surname of an adult, national of that State, obtained during a habitual residence in another Member State of which that person also holds the nationality - Name comprising tokens of nobility - Residence in the first Member State - Refusal by the authorities of the first Member State to enter the name acquired in the second Member State in the register of civil status - Justification - Public policy - Incompatibility with the essential principles of German law))
   (2016/C 287/09)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Karlsruhe

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Nabiel Peter Bogendorff von Wolffersdorff

      Defendants: Standesamt der Stadt Karlsruhe, Zentraler Juristischer Dienst der Stadt Karlsruhe

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 21 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that the authorities of a Member State are not bound to recognise the name of a citizen of that Member State when he also holds the nationality of another Member State in which he has acquired that name which he has chosen freely and which contains a number of tokens of nobility, which are not accepted by the law of the first Member State, provided that it is established, which it is for the referring court to ascertain, that a refusal of recognition is, in that context, justified on public policy grounds, in that it is appropriate and necessary to ensure compliance with the principle that all citizens of that Member State are equal before the law.

      (1)  OJ C 462, 22.12.2014.


title: Case T-145/06: Action brought on  18 May 2006  — Omya v Commission

text:
               15.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/32

         Action brought on 18 May 2006 — Omya v Commission
   (Case T-145/06)
   (2006/C 165/64)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Omya AG (Oftringen, Switzerland) (represented by: C. Ahlborn, C. Berg, Solicitors, C. Pinto Correira, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Decision adopted by the European Commission on 8 March 2006, in case COMP/M.3796 — Omya/J.M. Huber PCC;

               —

               declare that the concentration forming the subject matter of case COMP/M.3796 — Omya/J.M. Huber PCC is deemed to have been declared compatible with the common market; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant seeks annulment of the Commission's Decision C (2006)795 of 8 March 2006 in merger case COMP/M.3796 according to which the applicant pursuant to Article 11(3) of the EC Merger Regulation (1) is requested to supply the Commission with correct and complete information concerning the applicant's take over of the precipitated calcium carbonate business from J.M. Huber Corporation (‘the contested decision’). As a result of the contested decision, the merger timetable was suspended prolonging the deadline for a final decision on the notified concentration from 31 March 2006 to 28 June 2006.
   The Commission states in the contested decision that, in response to an earlier information request, the applicant had provided at least in part incorrect information. The applicant claims that this stands in contradiction to a previous letter from the Commission in which the Commission acknowledged that the complete information had been provided.
   In support of its application, the applicant invokes an infringement of Article 11(1) and (3) of the EC Merger Regulation because (i) the information requested by the contested decision was not necessary for the assessment of the concentration, (ii) the requested information had been provided in full earlier, and (iii) contrary to the principle of legal certainty, the Commission did not act without delay.
   The applicant further submits that the contested decision constitutes a misuse of the powers of the Commission under Article 11(3) of the EC Merger Regulation as the Commission's main goal in adopting the contested decision, according to the applicant, was to obtain an extension of the time limits under the EC Merger Regulation, rather than the collection of necessary information.
   Finally, the applicant alleges that the contested decision is in breach of the legitimate expectation of the applicant that it had discharged its obligation to provide the requested information and that the deadline for a final decision on the notified concentration was 31 March 2006. The applicant states that this expectation arose from the Commission's previous letter in which it acknowledged that the complete information had been provided and from the Commission's subsequent conduct.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (the EC Merger Regulation) (OJ 2004 L 24, p. 1).


title: Case T-152/08: Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2010 — Kido v OHIM — Amberes (SCORPIONEXO) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark SCORPIONEXO — Earlier national figurative mark ESCORPION — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/34

      Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2010 — Kido v OHIM — Amberes (SCORPIONEXO)
      (Case T-152/08) (1)

      (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark SCORPIONEXO - Earlier national figurative mark ESCORPION - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
      (2010/C 288/64)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: Kido Industrial Ltd (Yangcheon-gu, Republic of Korea) (represented by: M. Mall, lawyer)

         Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carillo, acting as Agent)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Amberes, SA (Igualada, Spain)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 31 January 2008 (Case R287/2007-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Amberes, SA and Kido Industrial Ltd.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  orders Kido Industrial Ltd to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 158, 21.6.2008.


C 134/12              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      5.5.2001
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour Admin-                     Removal from the register of Case C-103/99 (1)
istrative d’Appel de Lyon (Second Chamber), France, by
judgment of that court of 13 March 2001 in the case of
Ministre de l’Économie, des Finances et de l’Industrie v                                   (2001/C 134/22)
                           GEMO SA
                                                                     By order of 7 November 2000 the President of the Court of
                        (Case C-126/01)                              Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                                                                     from the register of Case C-103/99: (reference for a preliminary
                       (2001/C 134/19)                               ruling from Dioikitiko Protodikeio Thessalonikis): P. Moskof
                                                                     AE v Idryma Koinonikon Asfaliseon.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a judgment of the Cour Adminis-
trative d’Appel de Lyon (Administrative Court of Appeal,             (1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.
Lyons) (Second Chamber) of 13 March 2001, which was
received at the Court Registry on 19 March 2001, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Ministre de l’Économie, des
Finances et de l’Industrie v GEMO SA on the following
question:
‘Does the charge on meat purchases provided for under
Article 302 bis ZD of the Code Général des Impôts form part
of an arrangement which may be regarded as aid within the
meaning of Article 92 of the Treaty of 25 March 1957                        Removal from the register of Case C-84/99 (1)
establishing the European Community (now, after amendment,
Article 87 EC)?’                                                                            (2001/C 134/23)
                                                                     By order of 13 February 2001 the President of the Court of
                                                                     Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                                                                     from the register of Case C-84/99: (reference for a preliminary
                                                                     ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Amsterdamsche
                                                                     Football Club ‘AJAX’ and Langenberg Participaties BV, also
       Removal from the register of Case C-91/00 (1)                 trading under the name ‘Fan Promotions’ v S.C. Reule and
                                                                     Others.
                       (2001/C 134/20)
By order of 29 September 2000 the President of the Court of
                                                                     (1) OJ C 136 of 15.5.1999.
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-91/00: Commission of the
European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands.
(1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-163/00 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case C-90/00 (1)                                        (2001/C 134/24)
                       (2001/C 134/21)                               By order of 13 February 2001 the President of the Court of
                                                                     Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
By order of 6 October 2000 the President of the Court of             from the register of Case C-163/00: Commission of the
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal          European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
from the register of Case C-90/00: Commission of the
European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.
(1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.


title: Case C-363/08: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 November 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria)) — Romana Slanina v Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Wien (Social security for migrant workers — Family allowances — Refusal — National of one Member State resident with her child in another Member State, while the father of the child works in the former Member State)

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/12

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 November 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria)) — Romana Slanina v Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Wien
   (Case C-363/08) (1)

   (Social security for migrant workers - Family allowances - Refusal - National of one Member State resident with her child in another Member State, while the father of the child works in the former Member State)
   2010/C 24/18
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Romana Slanina

      Defendant: Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Wien

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) — Interpretation of Article 73 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self–employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (OJ 1971 L 149, p. 2) — National legislation providing for the payment of a family allowance (Familienbeihilfe) to persons who have the care of a child and who are permanently resident on national territory — Refusal to grant the allowance to an Austrian national who has settled with her child in another Member State, the father of the child having remained permanently resident on national territory and being in employment there

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 73 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, in the version amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, must be interpreted as meaning that a divorced person who was paid family allowances by the competent institution of the Member State in which she was living and where her ex-husband continues to live and work maintains in respect of her child, provided that child is recognised as a ‘member of the family’ of the ex-husband within the meaning of Article 1(f)(i) of that regulation, entitlement to such allowances even though she leaves that State and settles with her child in another Member State, where she does not work, and even though her ex-husband could receive those allowances in his Member State of residence.

               2.

               The fact that a person in a situation such as that of the applicant in the main proceedings is in employment in her Member State of residence, giving entitlement to family allowances, has, under Article 76 of Regulation No 1408/71, in the version amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, the effect of suspending entitlement to family allowances payable under the legislation of the Member State in whose territory her ex-husband is in employment, up to the sum provided for by the legislation of her Member State of residence.

      (1)  OJ C 285, 8.11.2008.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerische Verwaltungsgericht Ansbach by order of that court of 7 July 1997 in the case of 1. Ömer Nazli, 2. Caglar Nazli and 3. Melike Nazli v. Stadt Nürnberg (Case C-340/97)

text:
22 . 11 . 97          EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 357/ 19
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsge            Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerische
richtshof (Vienna) by order of that court of 12 August              Verwaltungsgericht Ansbach by order of that court of
1997 in the case of Erna Pelzl, Johannes Kovac, Harald              7 July 1997 in the case of 1 . Omer Nazli, 2. Caglar Nazli
Hohenberg, Kovac Schrott GmbH NFG KG, Wiener Stad                               and 3 . Melike Nazli v. Stadt Nürnberg
tische Allgemeine Versicherungs AG, Ulf Zmölnig, Kovac                                       ( Case C-340/97)
Management GmbH P. Kovac & Co. GmbH and Kovac
Eisen Maschinen Metalle GmbH NFG KG against the                                                ( 97/C 357/33 )
               Steiermärkische Landesregierung
                       ( Case C-338/97 )                            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                    European Communities by an order of the Bayerische Ver
                         ( 97/C 357/32 )
                                                                    waltungsgericht ( Bavarian Administrative Court ) Ansbach
                                                                    ( Fifth Chamber) of 7 July 1997, which was received at the
                                                                    Court Registry on 1 October 1997, for a preliminary
                                                                    ruling in the case of 1 . Omer Nazli, 2 . Caglar Nazli and
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsge
                                                                    3 . Melike Nazli against Stadt Nürnberg on the following
                                                                    questions:
richtshof ( Administrative Court), Vienna, of 12 August
1997, received at the Court Registry on 29 September
1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Erna Pelzl,           1 . Does a Turkish worker who has achieved the legal
Johannes Kovac, Harald Hohenberg, Kovac Schrott                           status conferred by the third indent of Article 6 ( 1 ) of
GmbH NFG KG, Wiener Stadtische Allgemeine Versiche                       Decision No 1 /80 of 19 September 1980 of the
rungs AG, Ulf Zmölnig, Kovac Management GmbH, P.                         Association Council ( set up by the Association
Kovac & Co . GmbH and Kovac Eisen Maschinen Metalle                      Agreement between the European Economic
GmbH NFG KG v. Steiermärkische Landesregierung                            Community and Turkey ) on the development of the
( Government of Steiermark) on the following questions:                  Association forfeit that status subsequently if he is
                                                                          taken into custody on strong suspicion of having
                                                                         committed a crime for which he is ultimately
                                                                         convicted and given a suspended prison sentence ?
Does Article 33 ( 1 ) of the sixth Council Directive 77/388/
EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of
the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common               2.   If not:
system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (')
preclude, on the ground that it is in the nature of a                     Is the expulsion of a Turkish worker in such
turnover tax, the maintenance in force of a tax which is
                                                                         circumstances solely on general preventive grounds,
payable in a Bundesland ( Regional State ) of a Member                   that is to say, as a deterrent to other aliens, compatible
State of the European Communities:                                       with Article 14 ( 1 ) of Decision No 1 /80 ?
— in respect of each calender year by all undertakings
     directly or indirectly involved in tourism which have
     their registered office or a place of business within
     certain closely defined areas, where the sum of those
     areas comprises almost the whole area of the                   Action brought on 30 September 1997 by the Commission
     Bundesland, and
                                                                    of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the
                                                                                Netherlands
                                                                                ( Case C-341/97)
— the amount of which is essentially proportional to the                                       ( 97/C 357/34 )
     turnover achieved by the undertaking primarily in that
     Regional State within a calendar year, but where the
     rate of contribution varies according to the intensity of      An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was
     tourism in that area and according to the degree of            brought before the Court of Justice of the European
     benefit which the legislature deems the commercial             Communities on 30 September 1997 by the Commission
     sector in question ( occupational group ) to derive from       of the European Communities, represented by H. van
     tourism, and                                                   Vliet, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
                                                                    Luxembourg at the office of C. Gomez de la Cruz,
                                                                    Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
— where no provision is made for the deduction of input
     tax ?                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                    — declare that, by adopting on 16 December 1992 the
C ) OJ L 145 , p. 1 .
                                                                          Regulation for the prevention of the introduction of
                                                                          foreign toxic dinoflagellata, the Kingdom of the
                                                                          Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations pursuant
                                                                          to Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty,


title: Case T-324/13: Judgment of the General Court of 16 July 2014  — Endoceutics v OHIM — Merck (FEMIVIA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark FEMIVIA — Earlier Community word mark FEMIBION — International registration designating the European Community of the earlier figurative mark femibion — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               1.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 292/43

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 July 2014 — Endoceutics v OHIM — Merck (FEMIVIA)
   (Case T-324/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark FEMIVIA - Earlier Community word mark FEMIBION - International registration designating the European Community of the earlier figurative mark femibion - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2014/C 292/53
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Endoceutics, Inc. (Quebec, Canada) (represented by: M. Wahlin, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Geroulakos, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Merck KGaA (Darmstadt, Germany) (represented by: M. Best, U. Pfleghar and S. Schäffner, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 April 2013 (Case R 1021/2012-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Merck KGaA and Endoceutics, Inc.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Endoceutics, Inc. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 252, 31.8.2013.


title: Case T-258/12: Order of the General Court of 2 July 2013 — Mederer v OHIM — Katjes Fassin (SOCCER GUMS) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               10.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 233/10

         Order of the General Court of 2 July 2013 — Mederer v OHIM — Katjes Fassin (SOCCER GUMS)
   (Case T-258/12) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate)
   2013/C 233/17
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Mederer GmbH (Fürth, Germany) (represented by: O. Ruhl and C. Sachs, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Marten and R. Pethke, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Katjes Fassin GmbH & Co. KG (Emmerich am Rhein, Germany) (represented by: T. Schmitz and C. Osterrieth, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 April 2012 (Case R 225/2011-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Mederer GmbH and Katjes Fassin GmbH & Co. KG.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               The applicant and the intervener shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of the costs incurred by the defendant.

      (1)  OJ C 217, 21.7.2012.


title: Case C-91/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 28 February 2008 — Wall AG v Stadt Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurter Entsorgungs- und Service GmbH (FES)

text:
               7.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 28 February 2008 — Wall AG v Stadt Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurter Entsorgungs- und Service GmbH (FES)
   (Case C-91/08)
   (2008/C 142/17)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Landgericht Frankfurt am Main
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Wall AG

      Defendants: Stadt Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurter Entsorgungs- und Service GmbH (FES)

      Other party to the proceedings: DSM Deutsche Städte Medien GmbH
   Questions referred

               1.

               Are the principle of equal treatment expressed inter alia in Articles 12 EC, 43 EC and 49 EC and the prohibition in Community law of discrimination on grounds of nationality to be interpreted as meaning that the consequent duties of transparency for public authorities, namely to use an appropriate degree of advertising to enable the award of service concessions to be opened up to competition and the impartiality of the procurement procedure to be reviewed (see the judgments of the Court of Justice in Case C-324/98 Telaustria, paragraphs 60 to 62; Case C-231/03 Coname, paragraphs 17 to 22; Case C-458/03 Parking Brixen, paragraphs 46 to 50; Case C-410/04 ANAV, paragraph 21; and C-260/04 Commission v Italy, paragraph 24), require national law to provide an unsuccessful tenderer with a claim to an order restraining an imminent breach of those duties and/or prohibiting the continuation of such a breach of duty?

               2.

               If Question 1 is answered in the negative: Do those duties of transparency form part of the customary law of the European Communities, in the sense that they are already applied continually and constantly, equally and generally, and are recognised as a binding rule by those concerned?

               3.

               Do the duties of transparency mentioned in Question 1 require, in the case also of an intended amendment to a service concession contract — including the substitution of a subcontractor who was mentioned as part of the tender — that the negotiations on this are again opened up to competition with an appropriate degree of advertising, or what would be the criteria for requiring such an opening up?

               4.

               Are the principles and duties of transparency mentioned in Question 1 to be interpreted as meaning that in the case of service concessions, in the event of a breach of duty, a contract concluded as a result of the breach and intended to create or amend a continuing obligation must be terminated?

               5.

               Are the principles and duties of transparency mentioned in Question 1 and Article 86(1) EC, referring also if necessary to Article 2(1)(b) and (2) of the Transparency Directive 80/723/EEC (1) and Article 1(9) of the Procurement Coordination Directive 2004/18/EC (2), to be interpreted as meaning that an undertaking is subject to those duties of transparency, as a public undertaking or contracting authority, if

                           —

                           it was set up by a regional or local authority for the purpose of waste disposal and street cleaning but also operates in the free market,

                           —

                           it belongs to that regional or local authority to the extent of a 51 % holding, but decisions of shareholders can be taken only by a three-quarters majority,

                           —

                           the regional or local authority appoints only a quarter of the members of the supervisory board of the undertaking, including the chairman, and

                           —

                           it achieves more than half its turnover from bilateral contracts for waste disposal and street cleaning in the territory of that regional or local authority, which reimburses itself by means of municipal taxes on its residents?

      (1)  Commission Directive 80/723/EEC of 25 June 1980 on the transparency of financial relations between Member States and public undertakings (OJ 1980 L 195, p. 35); Commission Directive 2000/52/EC of 26 July 2000 amending Directive 80/723/EEC on the transparency of financial relations between Member States and public undertakings (OJ 2000 L 193, p. 75).

      (2)  Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114).


title: Case T-212/12: Order of the General Court of 27 September 2012 — Ålands Industrihus v Commission

text:
               17.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/38

         Order of the General Court of 27 September 2012 — Ålands Industrihus v Commission
   (Case T-212/12) (1)

   2012/C 355/83
   Language of the case: Swedish
   The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 227, 28.7.2012.


title: Case F-35/09: Action brought on 2 April 2009 — Visser-Fornt Raya v Europol

text:
               18.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 167/26

         Action brought on 2 April 2009 — Visser-Fornt Raya v Europol
   (Case F-35/09)
   2009/C 167/49
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Maria Teresa Visser-Fornt Raya (the Hague, the Netherlands) (represented by: P. de Casparis)

      Defendant: European Police Office (Europol)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision of 12 June 2008 informing the applicant that it was impossible to offer her a permanent post, and the decision of 7 January 2009 rejecting the complaint brought against the first decision.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the decision of 12 June 2008 by which the defendant informed the applicant that it could not offer her a permanent post and the decision of 7 January 2009 in response to a complaint, stating that the objections which the applicant had raised to the decision of 12 June 2008 were unfounded;

               —

               order Europol to pay the costs.


title: Case T-337/12: Action brought on 30 July 2012 — El Hogar Perfecto del Siglo XXI v OHIM — Wenf International Advisers (Corkscrews)

text:
               22.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/38

         Action brought on 30 July 2012 — El Hogar Perfecto del Siglo XXI v OHIM — Wenf International Advisers (Corkscrews)
   (Case T-337/12)
   2012/C 287/68
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: El Hogar Perfecto del Siglo XXI, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: C. Ruiz Gallegos and E. Veiga Conde, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Wenf International Advisers Ltd (Tortola, Virgin Islands)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 June 2012 in Appeal R 89/2011-3;

               —

               order OHIM and the intervener to pay the costs

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Design for corkscrews — Community design 00083 0831-0001

      Proprietor of the Community design: The applicant

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community design: Wenf International Advisers Ltd

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: National design for bottle openers

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Application upheld

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law:

               —

               Infringement of Articles 4 and 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002

               —

               Infringement of Articles 4 and 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002


title: Case C-586/08: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 December 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale del Lazio — Italy) — Angelo Rubino v Ministero dell’Università e della Ricerca (Directive 2005/36/EC — Recognition of diplomas — Regulated profession — Selection of a predefined number of persons on the basis of a comparative assessment conferring a qualification limited in time — National academic qualification for appointment — University lecturer)

text:
               27.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/11

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 December 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale del Lazio — Italy) — Angelo Rubino v Ministero dell’Università e della Ricerca
   (Case C-586/08) (1)

   (Directive 2005/36/EC - Recognition of diplomas - ‘Regulated profession’ - Selection of a predefined number of persons on the basis of a comparative assessment conferring a qualification limited in time - National academic qualification for appointment - University lecturer)
   2010/C 51/17
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale amministrativo regionale del Lazio

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Angelo Rubino

      Defendant: Ministero dell’Università e della Ricerca

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio — Interpretation of Articles 3(1)(c) EC and 47(1) EC and of Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications — National legislation which does not allow for the recognition of the professional qualification of university lecturer obtained in another Member State

      Operative part of the judgment

   The fact that access to a profession is reserved to candidates who have been successful in a procedure to select a predefined number of persons on the basis of a comparative assessment of the candidates rather than by application of absolute criteria, which confers a qualification the validity of which is strictly limited in time, does not mean that that profession constitutes a regulated profession within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a) of Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications.
   Nevertheless, Articles 39 EC and 43 EC require qualifications obtained in other Member States to be accorded their proper value and to be duly taken into account in such a procedure.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 7.3.2009.


               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/67

         Removal from the register of Case T-213/03 (1)

   (2004/C 94/171)

      (Language of the Case: French)

   By order of 20 January 2004 the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case T-213/03: Francesco Contesso v Commission of the European Communities.

      (1)  OJ C 200 of 23.08.2003.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 March 2003 in Case C-135/01: Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 98/56/EC — Marketing of propagating material of ornamental plants — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period — Difficulties of interpretation)

text:
C 112/4                    EN                            Official Journal of the European Union                                             10.5.2003
      make-up or structure of such goods, or for goods or services               2.    Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
      directly connected with the goods previously sold and intended
      to meet the needs of customers of those goods.
                                                                                (1 ) OJ C 161 of 2.6.2001.
2.    It is for the national court to draw the consequences for the
      resolution of the dispute before it of the interpretation of the
      Community law concept of ‘genuine use’ of the trade mark given
      in the reply to the first question referred for a preliminary ruling.
( 1) OJ C 95 of 24.3.2001.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 11 March 2003
                                                                                in Case C-186/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                        the Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart): Alexander Dory v
                                                                                Federal Republic of Germany (1)
                            (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                (Inapplicability of Community law to compulsory military
                            of 20 March 2003                                     service — Equal treatment of men and women — Article 2
                                                                                of Directive 76/207/EEC — Compulsory military service in
in Case C-135/01: Commission of the European Communi-                               Germany limited to men only — Directive not applicable)
             ties v Federal Republic of Germany (1)
                                                                                (2003/C 112/07)
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
98/56/EC — Marketing of propagating material of orna-
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
mental plants — Failure to transpose within the prescribed
             period — Difficulties of interpretation)
                                                                                (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                             (2003/C 112/06)                                                        in the European Court Reports)
                     (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                In Case C-186/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published           EC by the Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart (Germany) for a
                      in the European Court Reports)                             preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
                                                                                court between Alexander Dory and Federal Republic of
                                                                                Germany, on the interpretation of Article 2 of Council
                                                                                Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implemen-
In Case C-135/01, Commission of the European Communities                         tation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women
(Agent: G. Braun) v Federal Republic of Germany (Agents:                         as regards access to employment, vocational training and
W.-D. Plessing and B. Muttelsee-Schön): Application for a                        promotion, and working conditions (OJ 1976 L 39, p. 40),
declaration that, by failing within the prescribed period to                     and, more generally, on the compatibility with Community
adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative measures                      law of the limitation of compulsory military service in
necessary in order to transpose into national law Council                        Germany to men, the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodríguez
Directive 98/56/EC of 20 July 1998 on the marketing of                           Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), M. Wathelet,
propagating material of ornamental plants (OJ 1998 L 226,                        R. Schintgen and C.W.A. Timmermans (Presidents of Cham-
p. 16), the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its                 bers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann, V. Skouris,
obligations under the EC Treaty and that directive, the Court                    F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues,
(Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of                     Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal
the Chamber, C. Gulmann and V. Skouris (Rapporteur),                             Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
F. Macken and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed,                       11 March 2003, in which it has ruled:
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
on 20 March 2003, in which it has ruled:
                                                                                Community law does not preclude compulsory military service being
1.    Declares that, by failing within the prescribed period to adopt            reserved to men.
      all the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary
      to transpose into national law Council Directive 98/56/EC of
                                                                                (1 ) OJ C 200 of 14.7.2001.
      20 July 1998 on the marketing of propagating material of
      ornamental plants, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed
      to fulfil its obligations under that directive;


title: Case F-53/10: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 3 September 2010 — Hecq v Commission

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/69

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 3 September 2010 — Hecq v Commission
   (Case F-53/10)
   ()
   2011/C 30/138
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


title: Action brought on 22 April 1997 by Angela Pollitzer against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-129/97)

text:
No C 228/ 16            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 26 . 7 . 97
(Netherlands ), represented by Nicolas Lhoest, of the                  Action brought on 16 April 1997 by Philippe Lammens
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at                against the Commission of the European Communities
the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30, Rue de Cessange.                                       ( Case T-120/97)
                                                                                ( 97/C 228/36 )
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
— annul the Commission's decision of 20 June 1996
    rejecting the applicant's request that it give                     An action against the Commission of the European
    consideration to the possible application of                       Communities was brought before the Court of First
    Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,                         Instance of the European Communities on 16 April 1997
                                                                       by Philippe Lammens, residing at Heme ( Belgium ),
— annul, in so far as may be necessary, the Commission's               represented by Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an
    decision adopted on 27 December 1996 expressly                     address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fidu
    rejecting the applicant's complaint,                               ciaire Myson Sari, 30, Rue de Cessange.
— order the defendant to pay all the costs .                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    — annul the Commission's decision of 18 June 1996
                                                                            rejecting the applicant's request that it give
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                      consideration to the possible application of
Case T-16/97 ( M.                                                           Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
(') OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.                                  — annul, in so far as may be necessary, the Commission's
                                                                            decision adopted on 27 December 1996 expressly
                                                                            rejecting the applicant's complaint,
                                                                       — order the defendant to pay all the costs.
Action brought on 16 April 1997 by Gerhard Keinhorst                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
   against the Commission of the European Communities
                         ( Case T-l 19/97 )                            The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
                           ( 97/C 228/35 )                             Case T-16/97 ( l ).
                (Language of the case: French)                         (') OJ No C 74 , 8 . 3 . 1997, p. 27.
An action against the Commission of the European
 Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 16 April 1997
 by Gerhard Keinhorst, residing at Tervuren ( Belgium ),
represented by Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an            Action brought on 22 April 1997 by Angela Pollitzer
 address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fidu                against the Commission of the European Communities
ciaire Myson Sari, 30, Rue de Cessange .                                                          (Case T-129/97 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 228/37)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
— annul the Commission's decision of 18 June 1996
     rejecting the applicant's request that it give                    An action against the Commission of the European
     consideration to the possible application of                      Communities was brought before the Court of First
     Article 31 (2 ) of the Staff Regulations,                         Instance of the European Communities on 22 April 1997
                                                                        by Angela Pollitzer, residing at Kraainem ( Belgium ),
— annul , in so far as may be necessary, the Commission's              represented by Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an
     decision adopted on 27 December 1996 expressly                    address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fidu
     rejecting the applicant's complaint,                              ciaire Myson Sari, 30, Rue de Cessange.
 — order the defendant to pay all the costs.                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   — annul the Commission's decision of 20 June 1996
                                                                            rejecting the applicant's request that it give
 The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                     consideration to the possible application of
 Case T-l 6/9 7 ( ] ).                                                      Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
 H OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.                                   — annul, in so far as may be necessary, the Commission's
                                                                            decision adopted on 27 December 1996 expressly
                                                                            rejecting the applicant's complaint,
 ---pagebreak--- 26 . 7 . 97             EN                     Official Journal- of the European Communities                                No C 228/ 17
— order the defendant to pay all the costs .                               represented by Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an
                                                                           address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fidu
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                        ciaire Myson Sari, 30, Rue de Cessange.
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
Case T-16/97 (').
                                                                           — annul the Commission's decision of 12 July 1996
(') OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.                                            rejecting the applicant's request that it give
                                                                                consideration to the possible application of
                                                                                Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
                                                                           — annul, in so far as may be necessary, the Commission 's
                                                                                decision adopted on 27 December 1996 expressly
Action brought on 25 April 1997 by Iosif Dascalu against                         rejecting the applicant's complaint,
         the Commission of the European Communities
                          ( Case T-133/97)                                 — order the defendant to pay all the costs .
                             ( 97/C 228/38 )
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
                                                                           Case T-16/97 ( ! ).
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                          (') OJ No C 74 , 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
Instance of the European Communities on 25 April 1997
by Iosif Dascalu, residing at Kraainem ( Belgium),
represented by Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fidu
ciaire Myson Sari, 30, Rue de Cessange.
                                                                           Action brought on 28 April 1997 by Jose Manuel Pinto
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                Teixeira against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
— annul the Commission's decision of 12 June 1996                                                      ( Case T-136/97 )
     rejecting the applicant's request that it give                                                       97/C 228 /40 )
     consideration to the possible application of
     Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,                                              (Language of the case: French)
— annul, in so far as may be necessary, the Commission's                    An action against the Commission of the European
     decision adopted on 27 December 1996 expressly                         Communities was brought before the Court of First
     rejecting the applicant's complaint,                                   Instance of the European Communities on 28 April 1997
                                                                            by Jose Manuel Pinto Teixeira, residing at Sarajevo
— order the defendant to pay all the costs .                                ( Bosnia ), represented by Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels
                                                                            Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                        offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30, Rue de Cessange.
 The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
 Case T-16/97 (»).
                                                                            — annul the Commission's decision of 18 June 1996
 (') OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.                                            rejecting the applicant's request that it give
                                                                                consideration to the possible application of
                                                                                Article 31 (2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
                                                                            — annul, in so far as may be necessary, the Commission's
                                                                                decision adopted on 27 December 1996 expressly
 Action brought on 16 April 1997 by Laurens Cerdijn                               rejecting the applicant's complaint,
    against the Commission of the European Communities
                           ( Case T-135/97 )                                — order the defendant to pay all the costs.
                               ( 97/C 228/39 )                              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                            The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
                                                                             Case T-16/97 (»).
 An action against the Commission of the European
 Communities was brought before the Court of First                           (') OJ No C 74 , 8 . 3 . 1997, p. 27.
 Instance of the European Communities on 16 April 1997
 by Laurens Cerdijn, residing at Hofstade ( Belgium ),


title: Action brought on 25 November 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic (Case C-397/97)

text:
24.1.98              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 26/3
Is Article 70 of the Act concerning the conditions of               the time-limits for transposition laid down in directives.
accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of               The time-limit here passed on 31 December 1995 without
Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments               the Italian Republic having adopted the provisions
to the Treaties on which the European Union is                      necessary to comply with the Directive referred to in the
founded (1), which provides that notwithstanding the                forms of order sought by the Commission.
obligations under the treaties on which the European
Union is founded the Republic of Austria may maintain its           (1) OJ L 243, 11.10.1995, p. 16.
existing legislation regarding secondary residences for five
years from the date of accession (1 January 1995), to be
interpreted as meaning that the transitional provisions
in Paragraph 40(2) and (5) of the Tiroler
Grundverkehrsgesetz 1996 (Landesgesetzblatt für Tirol
No 61/1996), which entered into force on 1 October
1996, fall within the definition of existing legislation, or        Action brought on 25 November 1997 by the Commission
are those provisions to be regarded as new legislation               of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
if, as a result of decisions of the Austrian                                                 (Case C-397/97)
Verfassungsgerichtshof, the provisions of previous Tyrol
laws on the sale of land were not applicable in the present                                    (98/C 26/06)
case?
                                                                    An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
(1) OJ C 241, 29.8.1994, p. 1.                                      the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                    25 November 1997 by the Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities, represented by Francesco Ruggeri Laderchi
                                                                    and GeÂrard Berscheid, of its Legal Service, acting as
                                                                    Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                    office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,
Action brought on 25 November 1997 by the Commission                Kirchberg.
 of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                       (Case C-396/97)                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
                         (98/C 26/05)
                                                                    Ð declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws,
                                                                         regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before                comply with Council Directive 93/120/EC of
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                      22 December 1993 amending Directive 90/539/EEC
25 November 1997 by the Commission of the European                       on animal health conditions governing intra-
Communities, represented by Francesco Ruggeri Laderchi                   Community trade in and imports from third countries
and GeÂrard Berscheid, of its Legal Service, acting as                   of poultry and hatching eggs (1), or in any event by
Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                 failing to notify those provisions, the Italian Republic
office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,                        has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive,
Kirchberg.
                                                                    Ð declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws,
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
                                                                         comply with Council Directive 93/121/EC of
                                                                         22 December 1993 amending Directive 91/494/EEC
Ð declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws,                 on animal health conditions governing intra-
     regulations and administrative provisions necessary to              Community trade in and imports from third countries
     comply with Directive 95/25/EC of 22 June 1995                      of fresh poultrymeat (2), or in any event by failing to
     amending Directive 64/432/EEC on health problems                    notify those provisions, the Italian Republic has failed
     affecting intra-Community trade in bovine animals                   to fulfil its obligations under that Directive,
     and swine (1), or in any event by failing to notify those
     provisions, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
     obligations under that Directive,                              Ð order the Italian Republic to pay the costs of the
                                                                         proceedings.
Ð order the Italian Republic to pay the costs of the
     proceedings.                                                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 Article 189 of the EC Treaty, under which a directive is
                                                                    binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each
                                                                    Member State to which it is addressed, involves an
Article 189 of the EC Treaty, under which a directive is            obligation on the part of Member States to comply with
binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each                 the time-limits for transposition laid down in directives.
Member State to which it is addressed, involves an                  The time-limit here passed on 1 January 1995 without the
obligation on the part of Member States to comply with              Italian Republic having adopted the provisions necessary
 ---pagebreak--- C 26/4                  EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   24.1.98
to comply with the Directives referred to in the forms of             Action brought on 2 December 1997 by the Commission
order sought by the Commission.                                       of the European Communities against the Federal
                                                                                Republic of Germany
(1) OJ L 340, 31.12.1993, p. 35.                                                             (Case C-403/97)
(2) OJ L 340, 31.12.1993, p. 39.
                                                                                (98/C 26/08)
                                                                      An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
                                                                      brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Action brought on 25 November 1997 by the Commission                  Communities on 2 December 1997 by the Commission of
 of the European Communities against the Italian Republic             the European Communities represented by Hans
                         (Case C-398/97)                              Stùvlbaek, of its Legal Service, and Karin Schreyer, on
                                                                      secondment to the same service under an exchange with
                           (98/C 26/07)
                                                                      national civil servants, acting as Agents, with an address
                                                                      for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before             de la Cruz, of the same service, 254 Wagner Centre,
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                   Kirchberg.
25 November 1997 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Francesco Ruggeri Laderchi
and GeÂrard Berscheid, of its Legal Service, acting as                The Commission claims that the Court should:
Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,                     Ð declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
Kirchberg.                                                                and administrative provisions necessary in order to
                                                                          comply with Council Directive 93/39/EEC of 14 June
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               1993 amending Directives 65/65/EEC, 75/318/EEC
Ð declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws,                  and 75/319/EEC in respect of medicinal products (1)
     regulations and administrative provisions necessary to               and Council Directive 93/40/EEC of 14 June 1993
     comply with Commission Directive 94/59/EC of                         amending Directives 81/851/EEC and 81/852/EEC on
     2 December 1994 amending for the third time the                      the approximation of the laws of the Member States
     Annexes to Council Directive 77/96/EEC on the                        relating to veterinary medicinal products (2) Ð with
     examination for Trichinae (Trichinelle spiralis) upon                the exception in each case of Article 1(7) Ð the
     importation from third countries of fresh meat derived               Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its
     from domestic swine (1), or in any event by failing to               obligations under Article 4 of Directive 93/39/EEC
     notify those provisions, the Italian Republic has failed             and Article 3 of Directive 93/40/EEC,
     to fulfil its obligations under that Directive,
                                                                      Ð order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the
Ð order the Italian Republic to pay the costs of the                      costs.
     proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Article 189 of the EC Treaty, under which a directive is
                                                                      It follows from the binding nature of directives, as laid
binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each
                                                                      down in the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC
Member State to which it is addressed, involves an
                                                                      Treaty, that the Member States to which a directive is
obligation on the part of Member States to comply with
                                                                      addressed are obliged to transpose its provisions into
the time-limits for transposition laid down in directives.
                                                                      national law so that they have full practical effect from
The time-limit here passed on 1 January 1995 without the
                                                                      the expiry of the time-limit for transposition at the latest.
Italian Republic having adopted the provisions necessary
                                                                      In this case that time-limit expired on 1 January 1995 and
to comply with the Directive referred to in the forms of
                                                                      the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to adopt the
order sought by the Commission.
                                                                      measures needed.
(1) OJ L 315, 8.12.1994, p. 18.
                                                                      (1) OJ L 214, 24.8.1993, p. 22.
                                                                      (2) OJ L 214, 24.8.1993, p. 31.