title: Case C-189/03: Action brought on 5 May 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the Netherlands

text:
5.7.2003                EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 158/11
Appeal brought on 25 April 2003 by A. Nardone against                    First Instance did not take account of the fact that the applicant
the judgment delivered on 26 February 2003 by the First                  is already entitled to a pension for permanent partial invalidity
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                   which has a clear effect on the calculation of his retirement
Communities in Case T-59/01 between A. Nardone and                       pension.
       the Commission of the European Communities
                         (Case C-181/03 P)
                          (2003/C 158/19)
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 26 February
2003 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance                 Action brought on 5 May 2003 by the Commission of
of the European Communities in Case T-59/01 between                      the European Communities against the Kingdom of the
A. Nardone and the Commission of the European Communi-                                               Netherlands
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 25 April 2003 by A. Nardone, represented
by J.R. Iturriagagoitia and K. Delvolvé, lawyers. The appellant                                    (Case C-189/03)
claims that the Court should:
principally:                                                                                (2003/C 158/20)
—     declare that the appeal is admissible and founded,
—     set aside in its entirety the judgment delivered by the
      Court of First Instance on 26 February 2003 in Case                An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought
      T-59/01;                                                           before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                         5 May 2003 by the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties, represented by W. Wils, acting as Agent.
in the alternative:
—     annul the express decision of the Appointing Authority
      of 15 December 2000 in so far as it rejected the                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
      appellant’s complaint of 23 May 2000 regarding the
      award of an invalidity pension under the second para-              —      Declare that, by laying down, in the framework of the
      graph of Article 78 of the Staff Regulations;                             Law on private security firms and detective agencies,
                                                                                provisions which require that:
—     in so far as is necessary, annul the express decision of the
      Appointing Authority of 20 March 2000 in so far as it
      rejected the appellant’s request of 18 November 1999                      —    an undertaking that wishes to provide services in
      regarding the award of an invalidity pension under the                         the Netherlands must have a permit, without taking
      second paragraph of Article 78 of the Staff Regulations;                       into account the obligations which the foreign
                                                                                service provider must already satisfy in the Member
                                                                                State where it is established, and by charging fees
in any event:                                                                        for this permit;
—     make an order as to costs in accordance with the
      applicable provisions of the Rules of Procedure.                          —    managers of these security firms have a permit for
                                                                                which a charge is also made;
                                                                                —    staff have a diploma issued by a Netherlands organis-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                      ation, and that installers of alarms have professional
                                                                                qualifications without taking into account qualifi-
                                                                                cations obtained in another Member State; the
The appellant disputes the finding of the Court of First Instance                    Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its
that he did not meet the cumulative conditions required under                        obligations under Article 49 EC and Directives 89/
Article 13 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations in order to be                     49/EEC ( 1) and 92/51/EEC (2) on the general system
entitled to an invalidity pension. First, he could not claim his                     for the recognition of professional qualifications.
entitlement in 1981, when he resigned, because he was
unaware of his state of health owing to the progressive and
degenerative nature of his condition. Secondly, the Court of             —      Order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- C 158/12                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          5.7.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                   The requirement for a fee for the issue of this proof is,
                                                                                moreover, an extra financial burden that is incompatible
                                                                                with Article 49 of the EC Treaty.
—     First and second objection: compulsory permits for firms
      and their staff                                                       —     Fourth objection: recognition of professional qualifi-
                                                                                cations
      The requirement that a private security firm wishing to
                                                                                Under Netherlands legislation, it is a requirement that staff
      provide services in the Netherlands must have a permit is
                                                                                members of a security firm have a diploma (Algemeen
      equivalent to a restriction on the freedom to provide
                                                                                Beveiligingsmedewerker — diploma) from a Netherlands
      services by the undertakings concerned. Such a restriction
                                                                                organisation. Furthermore, installers of alarms are
      is justified solely where there are overriding reasons of
                                                                                required to have certain qualifications, but no account is
      public interest, that interest cannot be guaranteed in the
                                                                                taken of diplomas acquired in another Member State.
      Member State in which the undertaking is established and
                                                                                Nowhere is there express reference to a procedure for the
      the national measure does not exceed what is necessary
                                                                                recognition of diplomas and qualifications acquired in
      to achieve the objective sought.
                                                                                another Member State for the exercise of the professions
                                                                                in question. The legislation in question does not appear
      However, as regards, first, the appropriateness of the                      to have a provision referring to the machinery for the
      measure to achieve the general interest objective, said to                  recognition of professional qualifications, such as those
      be the protection of customers for the services, there is                   included in the relevant national legislation. Such a
      no evidence from which to conclude that the obligation                      situation is incompatible with existing Community legis-
      for a permit as required in the Netherlands constitutes an                  lation, namely Directive 89/48/EEC and Directive 92/51/
      appropriate measure.                                                        EEC which together form a general framework for the
                                                                                recognition of professional qualifications obtained in
                                                                                other Member States.
      Moreover, the Netherlands legislation does not take into
      account the requirements which the foreign provider of
      services must already satisfy in his Member State of
                                                                            (1 ) OJ 1989 L 19, p. 16.
      establishment, in particular where he already has a permit
                                                                            (2 ) OJ 1992 L 209, p. 25.
      to carry out his activities in that State.
      Furthermore, the requirement for a permit is combined
      with costs for the foreign undertaking. This is an extra
      financial burden for foreign undertakings which are
      already required in their country of origin to apply for a
      permit and to pay such costs. Those charges in such
      circumstances also appear to be incompatible with
      Article 49 of the EC Treaty.
                                                                            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Labour Court,
                                                                            Dublin, by decision of that court dated 14 April 2003, in
      Just like the obligation that an undertaking have a permit,           the case of North Western Health Board against Margaret
      the requirement that managers must also obtain specific
                                                                                McKenna
      approval is not an appropriate measure which can be
      justified by one of the reasons on which the Netherlands
      authorities rely. In any case, as the firm itself must already
                                                                                (Case C-191/03)
      satisfy an obligation to have a permit in the Netherlands,
      the requirement for approval of managers is a dual
      measure which is thus certainly not necessary. The
                                                                                (2003/C 158/21)
      separate approval of managers therefore infringes the
      principle of proportionality and, thus, Article 49 of the
      EC Treaty.
                                                                            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
—     Third objection: proof of identity                                    European Communities by a decision of the Labour Court,
                                                                            Dublin, dated 14 April 2003, which was received at the Court
                                                                            Registry on 12 May 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case
      Foreign undertakings are obliged to ensure that staff                 of North Western Health Board and Margaret McKenna on the
      seconded to the Netherlands from outside their country
                                                                            following questions:
      of establishment are in possession of a proof of identity
      issued by the Netherlands authorities. That applies also
      for the temporary provision of services. As the seconded              1.    Does the operation of a sick leave scheme which treats
      staff must already, in accordance with Community law,                       employees suffering from pregnancy related illnesses and
      possess an identity card or passport, it is disproportionate                pathological illness in an identical fashion come within
      to require a proof of identity.                                             the scope of Directive 76/207 ( 1)?


title: Case T-235/00: Action brought on 6 September 2000 by Cooperative Codess Sociale Cooperative Sociale a r.l. and Others against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 4/6                    EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       6.1.2001
Action brought on 6 September 2000 by Cooperative                           Action brought on 16 October 2000 by SAT.1 Satel-
Codess Sociale Cooperative Sociale a r.l. and Others                        litenFernsehen GmbH against the Office for Harmonis-
    against Commission of the European Communities                            ation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                                                                                (Case T-323/00)
                           (Case T-235/00)
                                                                                (2001/C 4/09)
                             (2001/C 4/08)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                                                                            An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                     (Language of the case: Italian)                        Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
                                                                            Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                            16 October 2000 by SAT.1 SatellitenFernsehen GmbH, Mainz
                                                                            and Berlin, Germany, represented by Rheinhard Schneider, of
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                   Büsing, Müffelmann & Theye, Bremen (Germany).
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 6 September 2000 by Cooperative
Codess Sociale Cooperative Sociale a r.l. and Others, represent-            The applicant claims that the Court should:
ed by Franca Gajulli and Isabella Gianniotti, of the Venice Bar.
                                                                            —     annul and declare invalid the decision of the Second
                                                                                Board of Appeal of the defendant of 2 August 2000 in
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                       Case R 312/99-2;
                                                                            —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
—     annul Articles 1, 2, 5 and 6 of Commission Decision
      2000/394/EEC of 25 November 1999 on aid to firms in
      Venice and Chioggia by way of relief from social security
      contributions under Laws Nos 30/1997 and 206/1995,
                                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
      or annul Articles 1, 2, 5 and 6 thereof, and declare
      applicable the exemption provided for by Article 86(2) of
      the Treaty (services of general economic interest) to the
      applicant;                                                            Mark:                         Wordmark ‘SAT. 2’ — Appli-
                                                                                cation No 513135
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                                Goods or services:            Goods and services in Classes 35,
                                                                                38, 41, 42 (including distribution
                                                                                of radio and television pro-
                                                                                grammes, production of films and
                                                                                television programmes, distri-
                                                                                bution of film rights, development
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                           of software)
                                                                            Decision        contested     Refusal by the examiner to register
                                                                            before the Board of
The pleas in law and main arguments are those relied upon in                Appeal:
Cases T-234/00 Fondazione Opera S. Maria della Carità v
Commission. (1)
                                                                            Pleas in law:                 — misapplication of Article
                                                                                7(1)(b) of Regulation (EEC)
                                                                                No 40/94
(1) See p. 5 of this Official Journal.                                                                    — misapplication of Article
                                                                                7(1)(c) of Regulation (EEC)
                                                                                No 40/94


title: Assignment of Judges to Chambers

text:
5.2.2000               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 34/21
                                                       COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
             Assignment of Judges to Chambers                           cation for annulment of the decision of 1 October 1997 of
                                                                        the selection board for general competition COM/A/1047
                         (2000/C 34/39)                                 rejecting the applicant’s candidature for that competition —
                                                                        the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of:
                                                                        A. Potocki, President, C.W. Bellamy and A.W.H. Meij, Judges;
At its plenary meeting on 13 January 2000 the Court of First            J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a
Instance decided, pursuant to Article 2(4) of the Council               judgment on 9 December 1999, the operative part of which is
Decision of 24 October 1988 and Article 10 of the Rules of              as follows:
Procedure of the Court of First Instance, in respect of the period
ending on 30 September 2000, to assign Judge Forwood to
the First Chamber, to the First Chamber, Extended Compo-                1. The decision of 1 October 1997 of the selection board for general
sition, and to the Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition.                      competition COM/A/1047 rejecting the applicant’s candidature
                                                                             for that competition is annulled.
Consequently, the composition of the Chambers as decided on
6 July 1999 (OJ C 226 of 7 August 1999, p. 28) is modified              2. The Commission shall bear its own costs and pay all the
as follows:                                                                  applicant’s costs.
First Chamber
                                                                        (1) OJ C 41 of 7.2.1998.
Mr Vesterdorf (President of the Chamber), Mr Vilaras and
Mr Forwood, Judges;
First Chamber, Extended Composition
Mr Vesterdorf (President of the Chamber), Mr Potocki, Mr Meij,
Mr Vilaras and Mr Forwood, Judges;
                                                                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition
                                                                                (single Judge)
Mr Garcı́a-Valdecasas (President of the Chamber), Ms Lindh,
Mr Cooke, Mr Vilaras and Mr Forwood, Judges.
                                                                                of 9 December 1999
                                                                        in Case T-53/99: Nicolaos Progoulis v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   (Staff case — Staff report — Description of duties)
                      of 9 December 1999                                                           (2000/C 34/41)
in Case T-299/97: Vicente Alonso Morales v Commission
              of the European Communities (1)                                               (Language of the case: English)
(Officials — Action for annulment — Conditions of admis-
sion to a competition — University studies certified by a               In Case T-53/99: Nicolaos Progoulis, an official of the Com-
        diploma — Technical science studies in Spain)                   mission of the European Communities, represented by Vassi-
                                                                        lios Akritidis, of the Athens Bar, and Jonathan Branton,
                                                                        Solicitor, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                         (2000/C 34/40)                                 Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8-10, Rue Mathias Hardt, against
                                                                        Commission of the European Communities (Agent: Julian
                                                                        Currall) — application for the annulment of the decision of
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)                       the appointing authority of 17 November 1998 rejecting the
                                                                        applicant’s complaint of 9 June 1998 in which the applicant
In Case T-299/97: Vicente Alonso Morales, represented by                sought the amendment of his staff report for the period 1 July
Ramón Marés Salvador, of the Madrid Bar, of 136-1o Doctor              1995 to 30 June 1997, an order requiring the Commission to
Esquerdo, Madrid, v Commission of the European Communi-                 rectify the assessments of the applicant and to amend the
ties (Agents: Julian Currall and José Rivas Andrés) — appli-            description of duties given at paragraph 3(b) of the report as


title: Case T-472/17: Action brought on 31 July 2017 — Wilhelm Sihn jr. v EUIPO — in-edit (Camele’on)

text:
               2.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 330/12

         Action brought on 31 July 2017 — Wilhelm Sihn jr. v EUIPO — in-edit (Camele’on)
   (Case T-472/17)
   (2017/C 330/15)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Wilhelm Sihn jr. GmbH & Co. KG (Niefern-Öschelbronn, Germany) (represented by: H. Twelmeier, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: in-edit Sàrl (Mondorf-les-Bains, Luxembourg)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Camele’on’ — Application for registration No 13 317 714

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 May 2017 in Case R 570/2016-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay its own costs and to pay those incurred by Wilhelm Sihn jr. GmbH & Co. KG;

               —

               order in-edit S.à.r.l. to bear its own costs in case of an intervention.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-515/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 3 October 2011 — Deutsche Umwelthilfe e.V. v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               4.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/13

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 3 October 2011 — Deutsche Umwelthilfe e.V. v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-515/11)
   2012/C 32/22
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Deutsche Umwelthilfe e.V.

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the second sentence of Article 2(2) of Directive 2003/4/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC to be interpreted as meaning that bodies and institutions are acting in a legislative capacity when their activities relate to legislation by the executive on the basis of authorisation given by a law enacted by Parliament?

               2.

               If question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative, are such bodies and institutions permanently excluded from the term ‘public authority’, or only until completion of the legislative process?

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 41, p. 26.


title: Case C-301/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (Luxembourg) lodged on 7 July 2008 — Irène Bogiatzi, married name Ventouras v Deutscher Luftpool, Luxair SA, European Communities, State of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, Foyer Assurances SA

text:
               13.9.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 236/9

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (Luxembourg) lodged on 7 July 2008 — Irène Bogiatzi, married name Ventouras v Deutscher Luftpool, Luxair SA, European Communities, State of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, Foyer Assurances SA
   (Case C-301/08)
   (2008/C 236/14)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Cour de cassation
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Irène Bogiatzi, married name Ventouras

      Defendants: Deutscher Luftpool, Luxair SA (a Luxembourg airline company), European Communities, State of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, Foyer Assurances SA
   Questions referred

               1.

               Does the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air, Signed at Warsaw on 12 October 1929, as amended at The Hague on 28 September 1955, to which Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 (1) refers, form part of the rules of the Community legal order which the Court of Justice has jurisdiction to interpret under Article 234 EC?

               2.

               Must Council Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 of 9 October 1997 on air carrier liability in the event of accidents, in the version applicable at the time of the accident, namely 21 December 1998, be interpreted as meaning that, with regard to issues for which no express provision is made, the provisions of the Warsaw Convention, in this case Article 29, continue to apply to a flight between Member States of the Community?

               3.

               If the answer to the first and second questions is in the affirmative, is Article 29 of the Warsaw Convention, in conjunction with Regulation (EC) No 2027/97, to be interpreted as meaning that the period of two years laid down in that article can be suspended or interrupted or that the carrier or its insurer can waive that time-limit, by an act deemed by the national court to constitute recognition of liability?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 of 9 October 1997 on air carrier liability in the event of accidents (OJ 1997 L 285, p. 1).


title: Case C-351/13: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 4 September 2014 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 1999/74/EC — Articles 3 and 5(2) — Rearing of laying hens — Unenriched cages — Prohibition — Rearing of laying hens in cages which do not comply with the requirements of that directive)

text:
               10.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 395/18

      Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 4 September 2014 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
      (Case C-351/13) (1)

      ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 1999/74/EC - Articles 3 and 5(2) - Rearing of laying hens - Unenriched cages - Prohibition - Rearing of laying hens in cages which do not comply with the requirements of that directive))
      (2014/C 395/22)
      Language of the case: Greek

         Parties

         Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Markoulli and B. Schima, acting as Agents)

         Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: I.-K. Chalkias, E. Leftheriotou and M. Tassopoulou, Agents)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1)

                  declares that, by failing to ensure that from 1 January 2012 laying hens are no longer reared in unenriched cage systems, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 and Article 5(2) of Council Directive 1999/74/EC of 19 July 1999 laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens;

                  2)

                  orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.


title: Case C-527/15: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Midden-Nederland — Netherlands) — Stichting Brein v Jack Frederik Wullems, also trading under the name Filmspeler (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual and industrial property — Directive 2001/29/EC — Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights — Article 3(1) — Communication to the public — Definition — Sale of a multimedia player — Add-ons — Publication of works without the consent of the right holder — Access to streaming websites — Article 5(1) and (5) — Right of reproduction — Exceptions and limitations — Lawful use)

text:
               19.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/2

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Midden-Nederland — Netherlands) — Stichting Brein v Jack Frederik Wullems, also trading under the name Filmspeler
   (Case C-527/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual and industrial property - Directive 2001/29/EC - Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights - Article 3(1) - Communication to the public - Definition - Sale of a multimedia player - Add-ons - Publication of works without the consent of the right holder - Access to streaming websites - Article 5(1) and (5) - Right of reproduction - Exceptions and limitations - Lawful use))
   (2017/C 195/02)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank Midden-Nederland

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Stichting Brein

      Defendant: Jack Frederik Wullems, also trading under the name Filmspeler

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The concept of ‘communication to the public’, within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, must be interpreted as covering the sale of a multimedia player, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, on which there are pre-installed add-ons, available on the internet, containing hyperlinks to websites — that are freely accessible to the public — on which copyright-protected works have been made available to the public without the consent of the right holders.

               2.

               Article 5(1) and (5) of Directive 2001/29 must be interpreted as meaning that acts of temporary reproduction, on a multimedia player, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, of a copyright-protected work obtained by streaming from a website belonging to a third party offering that work without the consent of the copyright holder does not satisfy the conditions set out in those provisions.

      (1)  OJ C 27, 25.1.2016.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München by order of that court of 20 September 1995 in the case of Elisabeth Blasi v. Finanzamt München I (Case C-346/95)

text:
No C 351 /8              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       30 . 12 . 95
     12 December 1992 ( ): that Decision forms part of the                 2 . If question 1 is answered in the affirmative :
     primary law binding upon the Member States and on the
     institutions created by the Treaties . It constitutes a legal               ( a ) what period of accommodation can regularly by
     rule relating to the application of the Treaties,                                 regarded as short-term ?
     compliance with which is to be ensured by the Court. By
     deciding to hold eleven periods of plenary sessions in                            Is it no longer 'provision of accommodation in the
     Strasbourg and, in parallel, to fix at eight the number of                        hotel sector' if the operator keeps the rooms ready
     additional sessions in Brussels, the Parliament has failed                        for long-term accommodation and this finds
     to comply to the letter with the Edinburgh decision,                              expression in the conclusion of a long-term letting
     which imposed on it a binding obligation to hold 12                               agreement ( longer than six months )?
     plenary sessions in Strasbourg, the seat of the institution .
     Moreover, the contested decision does not respect the
     inherent balance of that decision and renders it                            ( h ) Is a tax exemption under Article 13 ( B ) ( b ) ( 1 ) for a
                                                                                proportion of the time possible if it transpires that
     nugatory ,                                                                        all the accommodation can be let on a short or
                                                                                long-term basis according to choice ?
— lack of competence : the European Parliament is obliged ,
     in the exercise of its powers to regulate its internal
     organization, to respect the competence of the Member                 3 . If question 1 is answered in the negative :
     States to fix the location of the seats of the institutions .
     To allow the European Parliament to hold additional
                                                                                On the basis of what temporal , spatial and
     plenary sessions in Strasbourg without first holding the                    conceptual criteria must the phrase 'provision of
     1 2 monthly sessions in Strasbourg would effectively call                   accommodation ... in the hotel sector or in sectors with
     in question the reality of the seat of the institution,                     a similar function ' be defined and which of them must
                                                                                necessarily be present ?
— breach of essential procedural requirements : the
     President of the European Parliament did not have the
     capacity to accept an amendment which is contrary to                  (') OJ No L 145 , p . 1 .
     the Decision adopted in Edinburgh .
      ( In the alternative :) A statement of reasons should have
     been given for the contested Decision , despite the
     absence of any express provision to that effect in the
     Treaties .
                                                                           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supremo Tribunal
(■) OJ No C 341 , 23 . 12 . 1992 , p . 1 .                                 Administrativo ( Second Chamber — Fiscal Matters ) by
                                                                           judgment of that court of 11 October 1995 in the case of
                                                                           Fazenda Publica against UCAL ( Uniao das Cooperativas
                                                                                Abastecedoras de Leite de Lisboa, UCRL )
                                                                                ( Case C-347/95 )
                                                                                ( 95./C 351 / 13 )
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht
Miinchen by order of that court of 20 September 1995 in the                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
         case of Elisabeth Blasi v. Finanzamt Miinchen I
                                                                           European Communities by judgment of the Supremo
                           ( Case C-346/95 )                               Tribunal Administrativo ( Supreme Administrative Court )
                              ( 95/C 351 / 12 )                             ( Second Chamber — Fiscal Matters ) of 11 October 1995 ,
                                                                           which was received at the Court Registry on 1 3 November
                                                                            1 995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Fazenda Publica
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      against UCAL (Uniao das Cooperativas Abastecedoras de
European Communities by an order of the Third Senate of                     Leite de Lisboa , UCRL ) on the following questions :
the Finanzgericht Miinchen ( Munich Finance Court ) of
20 September 1995 , which was received at the Court
Registry on 9 November 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in                   1 . are the 'charges ' described, which have the
the case of Elisabeth Blasi v. Finanzamt Miinchen I on the                         characteristics of taxes described above ('), contrary to
 following questions :                                                             Article 95 of the Treaty of Rome ?
 1 . Is Article 13 ( B ) ( b ) ( 1 ) of Council Directive 77/388/EEC        2 . Are they to be regarded as charges having an effect
        of 1 7 May 1 977 on the harmonization of the laws of the                   equivalent to a customs duty on imports, prohibited by
        Member States relating to turnover taxes ( Sixth VAT                       Articles 9 and 12 of that Treaty ?
        Directive ) (') to be interpreted as meaning that the
        provision of accommodation ... in the hotel sector or in
        sectors with a similar function consists solely in the               3 . Are they to be regarded as turnover tax within the
        short-term accommodation of guests ?                                       meaning fo Article 33 of the Sixth Directive ( 2 ), without


title: Case T-35/06: Action brought on  30 January 2006  — Honig Verband v Commission

text:
               8.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/35

         Action brought on 30 January 2006 — Honig Verband v Commission
   (Case T-35/06)
   (2006/C 86/71)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Honig Verband e. V. (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: M. Hagenmeyer and T. Teufer, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 1854/2005 of 14 November 2005 supplementing the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 2400/96 as regards the entry of a name in the ‘Register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications’ (Miel de Provence) (PGI);

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant challenges Regulation (EC) No 1854/2005 (1), under which the designation of origin ‘Miel de Provence’ is registered as a protected geographical indication (PGI) in the annex to Regulation (EC) No 2400/96 (2). Prior to the enactment of Regulation No 1854/2005 the applicant challenged the application for registration of the designation ‘Miel de Provence’ before the competent German authority.
   In support of its action the applicant submits three pleas in law.
   It submits, first, that the contested regulation should be annulled since it is contrary to the special and conclusive rules on the designation of origin for honey contained in Directive 2001/110/EC (3). Furthermore, the defendant's regulation constitutes a disproportionate restriction on the free movement of goods in terms of Article 28 EC.
   Second, in support of its action the applicant submits that the contested regulation is incompatible with the requirements of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 (4). In that regard, it claims that Article 2, Article 4 and the second indent of Article 7(4) of Regulation No 2081/92 have been infringed.
   Finally, the applicant alleges that Regulation No 1854/2005 was enacted pursuant to a legally incorrect procedure. The defendant did not deal adequately with the argument concerning the economic effect on an existing designation.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1854/2005 of 14 November 2005 supplementing the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 2400/96 as regards the entry of a name in the ‘Register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications’ (Miel de Provence) (PGI).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2400/96 of 17 December 1996 on the entry of certain names in the ‘Register of protected designation of origin and protected geographical indications’ provided for in Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs.

      (3)  Council Directive 2001/110/EC of 20 December 2001 relating to honey.

      (4)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs.


title: Case T-222/11: Order of the General Court of 6 September 2012 — Rautenbach v Council and Commission (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted having regard to the situation in Zimbabwe — Withdrawal from the list of persons concerned — Action for annulment — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               27.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/24

      Order of the General Court of 6 September 2012 — Rautenbach v Council and Commission
      (Case T-222/11) (1)

      (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted having regard to the situation in Zimbabwe - Withdrawal from the list of persons concerned - Action for annulment - No need to adjudicate)
      (2012/C 331/46)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Muller Conrad Rautenbach (Harare, Zimbabwe) (represented by: S. Smith QC, M. Lester, Barrister, and W. Osmond, Solicitor)

         Defendants: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and J. Herrmann, acting as Agents) and European Commission (represented by E. Paasivirta, M. Konstantinidis and T. Scharf, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      ACTION for the annulment of Council Decision 2011/101/CFSP of 15 February 2011 concerning restrictive measures against Zimbabwe (OJ 2011 L 42, p. 6), and of Commission Regulation (EU) No 174/2011 of 23 February 2011 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 314/2004 concerning certain restrictive measures in respect of Zimbabwe (OJ 2011 L 49, p. 23), in so far as they concern the applicant.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  There is no need to adjudicate on this action.

                  2.

                  The Council of the European Union shall bear, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by Muller Conrad Rautenbach.

                  3.

                  The European Commission shall bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 186, 25.6.2011.


title: Case C-446/16 P: Appeal brought on 9 August 2016 by Kohrener Landmolkerei GmbH and DHG Deutsche Heumilchgesellschaft mbH against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) made on 8 June 2016 in Case T–178/15, Kohrener Landmolkerei and DHG v Commission

text:
               7.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 410/7

         Appeal brought on 9 August 2016 by Kohrener Landmolkerei GmbH and DHG Deutsche Heumilchgesellschaft mbH against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) made on 8 June 2016 in Case T–178/15, Kohrener Landmolkerei and DHG v Commission
   (Case C-446/16 P)
   (2016/C 410/07)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellants: Kohrener Landmolkerei GmbH and DHG Deutsche Heumilchgesellschaft mbH (represented by: A. Wagner, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellants claim that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the order of the General Court of 8 June 2016 and find against the respondent;

               —

               declare admissible the appellants’ notice of opposition of 23 December 2014 in procedure AT-TSG-0007-01035.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   In the order under appeal, the General Court took the view that the appellants’ arguments related only to the late transmission of the notice of opposition by the national authority. The appellants, however, state that they also claimed that they were placed at a disadvantage by the stipulation in the second subparagraph of Article 51(1) of Regulation No 1151/2012 (1) and that that provision is unlawful because it does not contain any rule on the period within which the national authority had to transmit the appellants’ notice of opposition to the respondent. In that regard, the appellants referred to a flaw in that provision resulting in a situation in which, in the worst-case scenario, they would be unable to lodge a notice of opposition at all. The General Court did not rule on that issue.
   In the order presently under appeal, the General Court held only that the appellants had not adequately invoked the unlawfulness of that provision. However, the appellants had already referred in their application to the issue of the incorrect determination of the period in the second subparagraph of Article 51(1) of Regulation No 1151/2012. This means that the appellants did object to the rule laid down by the aforementioned provision and proceeded on the basis that their rights as opposing parties had not been adequately respected.

      (1)  Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural foodstuffs (OJ 2012 L 343, p. 1).


               8.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/1

         (2007/C 211/01)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 199, 25.8.2007

   Past publications

      OJ C 183, 4.8.2007

      OJ C 170, 21.7.2007

      OJ C 155, 7.7.2007

      OJ C 140, 9.6.2007

      OJ C 129, 9.6.2007

      OJ C 117, 26.5.2007

   These texts are available on:

               EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu


title: Case C-63/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Napoli (Italy) lodged on 7 February 2013 — Fortuna Russo v Comune di Napoli

text:
               18.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/13

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Napoli (Italy) lodged on 7 February 2013 — Fortuna Russo v Comune di Napoli
   (Case C-63/13)
   2013/C 141/22
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Napoli

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Fortuna Russo

      Defendant: Comune di Napoli

      Questions referred

               1.

               When is an employment relationship to be regarded as being for the public service of the ‘State’, for the purposes of Clause 5 of [the framework agreement set out in the annex to] Directive 1999/70/EC (1) and, in particular, within the meaning of the expression ‘specific sectors and/or categories of workers’, and thus capable of justifying results that are different from those which ensue from employment relationships in the private sector?

               2.

               Having regard to the explanations contained in Article 3(1)(c) of Directive 2000/78/EC (2) and in Article 14(1)(c) of Directive 2006/54/EC, (3) does the notion of employment conditions contained in Clause 4 of [the framework agreement set out in the annex to] Directive 1999/70/EC also include the consequences of the unlawful interruption of an employment relationship? If the answer to the preceding question is affirmative, is the difference between the consequences normally provided for in national law for the unlawful interruption of fixed-term employment relationships and for the unlawful interruption of employment relationships of indefinite duration justifiable under Clause 4?

               3.

               By virtue of the principle of sincere cooperation, is a State precluded from presenting to the Court of Justice of the European Union in a request for a preliminary ruling a deliberately untrue description of a national legislative framework and are the national courts obliged, in the absence of any alternative interpretation of national law that also satisfies the obligations deriving from membership of the European Union to the same degree, to interpret, where possible, national law in accordance with the interpretation given by the State?

      (1)  Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43).

      (2)  Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16).

      (3)  Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast) (OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23).


title: Case T-24/16: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2016 — Sovena Portugal — Consumer Goods v EUIPO — Mueloliva (FONTOLIVA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark FONTOLIVA — Earlier national word mark FUENOLIVA — Relative ground for refusal — Validity of the registration of the earlier mark — Submission of new facts and evidence before the General Court — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Power to alter — Article 8(1)(b), Article 42(2) and (3) and Articles 65 and 76 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               30.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/47

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2016 — Sovena Portugal — Consumer Goods v EUIPO — Mueloliva (FONTOLIVA)
   (Case T-24/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark FONTOLIVA - Earlier national word mark FUENOLIVA - Relative ground for refusal - Validity of the registration of the earlier mark - Submission of new facts and evidence before the General Court - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Power to alter - Article 8(1)(b), Article 42(2) and (3) and Articles 65 and 76 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 030/53)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Sovena Portugal — Consumer Goods, SA (Algés, Portugal) (represented by: D. Martins Pereira, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: L. Rampini, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Mueloliva, SL (Córdoba, Spain)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 November 2015 (Case R 1813/2014-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Mueloliva and Sovena Portugal — Consumer Goods.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 4 November 2015 (Case R 1813/2014-2);

               2.

               Rejects the opposition filed by Mueloliva, SL to the international registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark FONTOLIVA applied for by Sovena Portugal — Consumer Goods, SA;

               3.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               4.

               Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Sovena Portugal — Consumer Goods for the purposes of the proceedings before the Court;

               5.

               Orders EUIPO and Mueloliva each to pay half of the costs necessarily incurred by Sovena Portugal — Consumer Goods for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

      (1)  OJ C 106, 21.3.2016.


title: Case T-236/13: Action brought on 23 April 2013 — CMC France v Commission

text:
               15.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/38

         Action brought on 23 April 2013 — CMC France v Commission
   (Case T-236/13)
   2013/C 171/76
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: CMC France (Châtenois, France) (represented by: J.-M. Leprêtre and N. Chahid-Nouraï, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul, with immediate effect, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, Commission Directive 2013/2/EU of 7 February 2013 amending Annex I to Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on packaging and packaging waste, in so far as it adds rolls, tubes and cylinders, with the exception of those for industrial use, to the list of examples of packaging;

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay the costs in their entirety.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-202/13 Group’Hygiène v Commission.


No C 119/ 10             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  13 . 5 . 95
on the same questions as in Case C-47/95 , C-48/95 ,                    from the register of Case C-455/93 : Italian Republic v.
C-49/95 , C-50/95 and C-60/95 ( 1 ).                                    Commission of the European Communities.
i 1 ) See page 5 of this Official Journal .                             0 ) OJ No C 18 , 21 . 1 . 1994 .
   Removal from the register of Joined Cases C-183/89 H
                          and C-138/90 ( 2 )                                   Removal from the register of Case C- 1 1 7/94 ( x )
                            ( 95/C 119/21                                                           ( 95/C 119/23 )
fiy order of 21 February 1995 the President of the Court of             By order of 17 February 1995 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                 Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Joined Cases C-183/89 and C-138/90 :               from the register of Case C- 1 17/94 (reference for a
1 . Gesamtverband des Deutschen Steinkohlenbergbaus,                    preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Diisseldorf):
2 . Eschweiler Bergwerks-Verein AG, 3 . Gewerkschaft                    Ratiopharm GmbH & Co . v. Mundipharma GmbH.
Auguste Victoria, 4 . Gewerkschaft Sophia-Jacoba, 5 .
Preussag AG Kohle, 6 . Ruhrkohle AG, 7. Saarbergwerke
AG v. Commission of the European Communities and                        (!) OJ No C 174, 25 . 6 . 1994 .
Federal Republic of Germany v. Commission of the
European Communities.
f 1 ) OJ No C 192 , 29 . 7 . 1989 .
( 2 ) OJ No C 146, 15 . 6 . 1990 .
                                                                               Removal from the register of Case C-183/94 (*)
                                                                                ( 95/C 119/24 )
                                                                        By order of 7 February 1995 the President of the Court of
        Removal from the register of Case C-455/93 ( )                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                            ( 95/C 119/22 )                             from the register of Case C-l 83/94: Commission of the
                                                                        European Communities v. Italian Republic .
By order of 17 February 1 995 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                 f 1 ) OJ No C 233 , 20 . 8 . 1994 .
                                                       COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                Parliament (Agents: M. Peter and J. Pantalis) — application
                         of 22 March 1995                               for the annulment of the decision of the European
                                                                        Parliament of 29 September 1992 refusing the payment of
        in Case T-43/93 : Sylviane Dachy and Others v.                  the applicant of the expatriation allowance from
                     European Parliament (*)                            1 September 1992 — the Court of First Instance ( Second
(Officials   — Expatriation allowance — Services performed              Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, and
                for an international organization)                      D. P. M. Barrington and A. Saggio, Judges; H. Jung,
                            ( 95/C 119/25                               Registrar, has given a judgment on 22 March 1995 , in which
                                                                        it:
                  (Language of the case: French)
                                                                        1 , dismisses the action;
In Case T-43/93 : Sylviane Dachy, Loris and Fabio Lo                    2, orders the parties to pay their own costs.
Giudice, the next-of-kin of Mario Lo Giudice, formerly an
official of the European Parliament, residing at Namur
( Belgium ), represented by Manuel Campolini, of the                    f 1 ) OJ No C 210, 4 . 8 . 1993 .
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the Chambers of Charles Duro, 6 Rue Heine, v. European


title: Case C-215/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Regeringsrätten, by order of that Court of 3 May 2000 in the case of Arbetsmarknadsstyrelsen v Petra Rydergård

text:
22.7.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 211/15
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Regeringsrätt-                   consumption, and by making the authorisation of health-
en, by order of that Court of 3 May 2000 in the case of                      related information subject to a prior approval procedure
         Arbetsmarknadsstyrelsen v Petra Rydergård                           (Paragraph 9(3) LMG), the Republic of Austria has
                                                                             infringed its obligations under Articles 2(1)(b) and 15(1)
                          (Case C-215/00)                                    and (2) of Directive 79/112 (1) and under Article 28 EC
                                                                             (formerly Article 30 of the EC Treaty);
                         (2000/C 211/25)                                 2. order the defendant to pay the costs.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   Pleas in law and main arguments
European Communities by order of the Regeringsrätten
(Supreme Administrative Court) of 3 May 2000, which was                  — As to the prohibition of health-related
received at the Court Registry on 31 May 2000, for a                         information              on       foodstuffs          (Para-
preliminary ruling in the case of Arbetsmarknadsstyrelsen v                  graph 9(1) LMG)
Petra Rydergård on the following questions:                                  The rules laid down in Paragraph 9(1)(a) to (c) of the LMG
                                                                             do not, in terms of their interpretation and application,
1. Can a person who is in the same situation as Petra
                                                                             permit foodstuffs intended for general consumption to
     Rydergård be regarded as having been available to the
                                                                             provide any health-related information (for example, indi-
     employment services, within the meaning of Article 69(1)
                                                                             cations of physiological or pharmacological effects,
     of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1), for the days
                                                                             especially those which preserve youthfulness, retard the
     in a period of unemployment on which she has been
                                                                             ageing process, aid slimming or preserve health). Such
     prevented from pursuing gainful employment because she
                                                                             rules limit the scope of application of Article 2(1)(b) of
     has been caring for a sick child and does the assessment
                                                                             Directive 79/112/EEC. They may only be applied if they
     depend on the content of the national legislation?
                                                                             are justified on one of the grounds specified in Article 15(2)
                                                                             (protection of public health, consumer protection, preven-
2. Does Article 69(1) require that a person seeking work
                                                                             tion of unfair competition). A Member State is not entitled,
     must have been available to the employment services
                                                                             however, to exercise its right so as to cement existing
     for an uninterrupted period of four weeks immediately
                                                                             consumer habits with a view to preserving an advantage
     preceding his departure to another Member State?
                                                                             acquired by a domestic industry engaged in meeting the
                                                                             consumer demand, when other measures are available to
(1) of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to         protect consumers against the risk of being misled. In
    employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of             the Commission’s view, a rule generally prohibiting the
    their families moving within the Community (OJ English Special           provision of health-related information on foodstuffs is
    Edition 1971 (11), p. 416).                                              not necessary, provided that such information is not liable
                                                                             to mislead, and is therefore not justified under Article 15(2)
                                                                             of Directive 79/112.
                                                                         — As to the procedure requiring the grant
                                                                             of prior approval for the provision of
                                                                             health-related information on food-
                                                                             stuffs (Paragraph 9(3) LMG)
Action brought on 31 May 2000 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Republic of                          The requirement laid down by Paragraph 9(3) LMG, where-
                              Austria                                        by approval must be obtained even for the provision of
                                                                             truthful and non-misleading information — as insisted
                          (Case C-221/00)                                    upon by the Austrian Government — constitutes a
                                                                             measure having equivalent effect within the meaning of
                                                                             Article 28 EC (formerly Article 30 of the EC Treaty). The
                         (2000/C 211/26)
                                                                             rules in issue have the effect of preventing products bearing
                                                                             health-related information which are legally manufactured
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before                 and/or sold in another Member State from being placed
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 31 May                   directly on the market in Austria. Since the Commission
2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,                          considers that the general prohibition precluding the
represented by Josef Christian Schieferer, of its Legal Service,             provision of health-related information on foodstuffs is
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of                   not justified on grounds of consumer protection, it follows
Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of the Legal Service of the European               that the same conclusion likewise applies with regard
Commission, Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg.                                  to the prior approval procedure connected with that
                                                                             prohibition. Moreover, consumer protection can be
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                  ensured by measures having a less restrictive effect on the
                                                                             free movement of goods, for example by the carrying out
1. declare that, by interpreting and applying Paragraph 9(1)                 of appropriate controls on the market.
     of the Lebensmittelgesetz (the Austrian Law on foodstuffs,
     hereinafter ‘the LMG’) on the basis that it prohibits,              (1) OJ 1979 L 33, p. 1.
     generally and absolutely, the provision of any health-
     related information on foodstuffs intended for general


title: Case T-855/16: Action brought on 7 December 2016 — Fertisac v ECHA

text:
               30.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/56

         Action brought on 7 December 2016 — Fertisac v ECHA
   (Case T-855/16)
   (2017/C 030/64)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Fertisac, SL (Atarfe, Spain) (represented by: J. Gómez Rodríguez, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Chemicals Agency

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul ECHA Decision No SME (2016) 5150 of 15 November 2016 declaring that FERTISAC SL did not fulfil the requirements for the fee reduction provided for medium-sized enterprises and requiring it to pay an administrative fee.

               —

               Annul ECHA invoice No 10060160 of 15 November 2016, issued on the basis of ECHA Decision No SME (2016) 5150, in the amount corresponding to the difference between the fee paid by FERTISAC SL and the fee payable for a large enterprise.

               —

               Annul ECHA invoice No 10060161 of 15 November 2016 which determines the administrative fee in accordance with ECHA Decision No SME (2016) 5150.

               —

               Order the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging an error in the classification of FERTISAC SL as a large enterprise.

                           —

                           The applicant claims in this regard that Article 2(1) of the Annex to Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (OJ 2003 L 124, p. 36) (EC) provides that the category of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) is constituted by enterprises that employ fewer than 250 persons and which have an annual turnover not exceeding EUR 50 million or an annual balance sheet not exceeding EUR 43 million.

                     There are two threshold criteria to be met for an undertaking to be classified as an SME. It is not just a question of meeting only one of those criteria (as follows from the decision of the ECHA, inasmuch as it applied only one of those criteria: the annual turnover), clearly overlooking the first requirement, namely, the number of persons, which is clearly differentiated by the conjunction ‘and’. However, at no time has FERTISAC SL exceeded the threshold of employing more than 250 persons.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging misinterpretation by the defendant of Recommendation 2003/361.

                           —

                           The applicant claims in this regard that in order to determine its size only the data of the applicant and its associates should be taken into account. The applicant is not part of a group of enterprises. The user guide on the definition of a SME published by the European Commission confirms that interpretation. Moreover, Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94, as well as Council Directive 76/796/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC and recital 9 and Article 2 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 340/2008 of 16 April 2008 on the fees and charges payable to the European Chemicals Agency pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) (OJ 2008 L 107, p. 6), refer to Recommendation 2003/361 for the purposes of defining SMEs.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 December 2004 in Case C-313/03: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 1999/63/EC — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period — Failure to communicate the implementing measures)

text:
               5.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 57/10

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 16 December 2004
   in Case C-313/03: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 1999/63/EC - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period - Failure to communicate the implementing measures)
   (2005/C 57/19)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case C-313/03, action for failure to fulfil obligations under Article 226 EC brought on 23 July 2003 by Commission of the European Communities (Agent: M.-J. Jonczy) against Italian Republic (Agent: I.M Braguglia, assisted by A. Cingolo), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. Silva de Lapuerta, President of Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and J. Makarczyk, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 December 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               By failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 1999/63/EC concerning the Agreement on the organisation of working time of seafarers concluded by the European Community Shipowners' Association (ECSA) and the Federation of Transport Workers' Unions in the European Union (FST) – Annex: European Agreement on the organisation of working time of seafarers, or in any event, by failing to communicate any such provisions to the Commission, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(1) of that directive;

               2.

               The Italian Republic is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 226 of 20.09.2003.


title: Action brought on 30 May 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic (Case C-208/97)

text:
26 . 7. 97             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 228/7
The Commission further considers that neither the steps                 Action brought on 2 June 1997 by the Commission of the
taken by Belgium with regard to the protection of the                   European Communities against the Council of the
North Sea nor the (national and regional ) Belgian rules                                       European Union
constitute programmes for the reduction of pollution                                           ( Case C-209/97)
within the meaning of Article 7 of the directive.
                                                                                ( 97/C 228/ 14 )
H OJ No L 129, 18 . 5 . 1976, p . 23 .
                                                                        An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                        brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                        Communities on 2 June 1997 by the Commission of the
                                                                        European Communities, represented by Michel Nolin and
Action brought on 30 May 1997 by the Commission of                      Pieter Van Nuffel, acting as Agents, with an address for
the European Communities against the Portuguese
                                                                        service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la
                                                                        Cruz, Wagner Centre.
                                Republic
                          ( Case C-208/97)
                                                                        The Commission of the European Communities claims
                            ( 97/C 228/13 )                             that the Court should :
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought                   — annul      Council     Regulation    ( EC )   No   515/97  of
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                     13 March 1997 on mutual assistance between the
on 30 May 1997 by the Commission of the European                            administrative authorities of the Member States and
Communities, represented by Francisco de Sousa Fialho,                      cooperation between the latter and the Commission to
of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for                  ensure the correct application of the law on customs
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la                   and agricultural matters ( j ),
Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                        — maintain in force, pursuant to Article 174 of the EC
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                 Treaty, Titles V and VI of the abovementioned
                                                                            Regulation,
— declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws,
     regulations or administrative provisions necessary to
     comply with Council Directive 84/156/EEC ( J ) of                  — order the defendant to pay the costs .
     8 March 1984 on limit values and quality objectives
     for mercury discharges by sectors other than the chlor            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     alkali electrolysis industry, inasmuch as it neither drew
     up or implemented the specific programmes provided
     for in Article 4 thereof, the Portuguese Republic has              — Incorrect legal basis :
     failed to fulfil its obligations under the third
     paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty and                          The Regulation at issue could have been based on
     Article 4 of Directive 84/156/EEC,                                     Article 100a of the EC Treaty, so as to exclude
                                                                            reliance on Article 235 thereof. It is submitted that:
— declare, in the alternative, that, by failing forthwith to
     inform    the   Commission          of such   measures,   the          — like the previous regulation ( Regulation ( EEC )
     Portuguese Republic failed to fulfil its obligations                        No    1468/81 ),    Regulation      ( EC ) No   515/97
     under those provisions,                                                     constitutes a measure for the harmonization of the
                                                                                national laws of the Member States . That initial
                                                                                regulation was based on Article 235 of the EC
 — order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs .
                                                                                Treaty because, at the time of its adoption,
                                                                                Article 100a of the EC Treaty, which was
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                             introduced by the Single European Act, was not
                                                                                yet in existence . Indeed, the last recital in the
 Under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty,                      preamble shows that, according to the Council,
 a directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved,                  Article 235 is relied on only as regards the
 upon each Member State to which it is addressed. In the                         establishment of the new ' CIS' database ( Customs
 present case, the Directive was fully applicable as from                        Information System — see Articles 23 to 41 of the
 13 March 1986 and the specific programmes provided for                          Regulation in issue ).
 in Article 4 thereof applied as from 1 January 1989 .
 Despite the prescribed periods having expired, the                              However, the CIS cannot be regarded as an
 Portuguese Republic did not draw up or apply the                                autonomous Community entity. The Member
 abovementioned specific programmes or, in any event, did                        States are, as such, ' CIS partners', as is the
 not inform the Commission thereof.                                              Commission, which does not play a central role in
                                                                                the CIS but performs a coordinating function .
 (') OJ No L 74 , 17. 3 . 1984, p . 49 .
                                                                                The Commission considers, in the alternative, that
                                                                                even if it was necessary, in view of the


title: Case T-298/15: Action brought on 8 June 2015 — Atlas v OHIM (EFEKT PERLENIA)

text:
               27.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/44

         Action brought on 8 June 2015 — Atlas v OHIM (EFEKT PERLENIA)
   (Case T-298/15)
   (2015/C 245/54)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Atlas sp. z. o.o. (Łódz, Poland) (represented by R. Rumpel, lawyer)

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

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘EFEKT PERLENIA’ — Application for registration No 12 668 125.

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 March 2015 in Case R 2352/2014-5.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that Court should:

               —

               declare the action to be well founded;

               —

               set aside the contested decision in so far as it rejected the application for registration;

               —

               amend the contested decision in such a way that the mark may be registered for all of the goods and services claimed;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Breach of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-453/05: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 June 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht des Landes Brandenburg, Germany) — Volker Ludwig v Finanzamt Luckenwalde (Sixth Directive — VAT — Concept of transactions consisting in the negotiation of credit )

text:
               4.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/10

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 June 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht des Landes Brandenburg, Germany) — Volker Ludwig v Finanzamt Luckenwalde
   (Case C-453/05) (1)

   (Sixth Directive - VAT - Concept of transactions consisting in ‘the negotiation of credit’)
   (2007/C 183/16)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Finanzgericht des Landes Brandenburg
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Volker Ludwig

      Defendant: Finanzamt Luckenwalde
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht des Landes Brandenburg — Interpretation of Article 13B(d)(1) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1), as amended — Concept of transactions consisting in the negotiation of credit — Refusal to exempt commission received by a financial adviser from a company providing financial services, of which he is subagent, as remuneration for the conclusion of a credit agreement, where there is no contractual relationship between the adviser and the parties to the credit agreement
   Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               The fact that a taxable person analyses the financial situation of clients canvassed by him with a view to obtaining credit for them does not preclude recognition of the service supplied as being a negotiation of credit which is exempt under Article 13B(d)(1) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, if, in the light of the foregoing interpretative criteria, the negotiation of credit offered by that taxable person falls to be considered as the principal service to which the provision of financial advice is ancillary, in such a way that the latter shares the same tax treatment as the former. It is for the national court to determine whether that is the case in the proceedings before it.

               2)

               The fact that the taxable person has no contractual link with any of the parties to a credit agreement to the conclusion of which he has contributed and that he does not establish direct contact with one of those parties does not preclude that taxable person from providing a service of negotiation of credit which is exempt under Article 13B(d)(1) of Sixth Directive 77/388.

      (1)  OJ C 60, 11.3.2006.


title: Case C-291/08: Action brought on 1 July 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria

text:
               25.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 272/6

         Action brought on 1 July 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria
   (Case C-291/08)
   (2008/C 272/06)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Støvlbæk and C. Egerer, Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Austria
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations or administrative provisions necessary to transpose Council Directive 2006/100/EC of 20 November 2006 (1) adapting certain Directives in the field of freedom of movement of persons, by reason of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania, or by not communicating them to the Commission, the Republic of Austria has infringed its obligations under Article 2 of that directive;

               —

               Order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The deadline for transposition of Directive 2006/100/EC expired on 1 January 2007.

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 363, p. 141.


title: Case T-361/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of 7 September 2006 — Austria v Commission

text:
               28.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/31

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 7 September 2006 — Austria v Commission
   (Case T-361/04) (1)

   (2006/C 261/63)

      Language of the case: German

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

      (1)  OJ C 300, 4.12.2004.


title: Case T-582/08: Action brought on 30 December 2008 — Carpent Languages v Commission

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/43

         Action brought on 30 December 2008 — Carpent Languages v Commission
   (Case T-582/08)
   (2009/C 69/96)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Carpent Languages SPRL (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: P. Goergen, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the action admissible and well founded;

               —

               Accordingly, annul the decision to reject the applicant's tender;

               —

               Annul the decision awarding the contract to ADIE TECHNICS SPRL;

               —

               In the alternative, in the event that the Court does not grant the application for annulment of the contested decision, order the Commission to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 200 000 (two hundred thousand Euros) as compensation for the applicant's pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses;

               —

               Order the Commission of the European Communities to pay all the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant contests the decision of the Commission to reject its tender made in respect of the call for tenders for lot No 4 of the contract notice ‘Multiple framework contracts for meeting and conference organisation services’ (OJ 2008 S 58-77561), and the decision to award the contract to another tenderer. The applicant also seeks compensation for the loss allegedly caused by the contested decision.
   In support of its action, the applicant raises three pleas in law, alleging:

               —

               breach of the duty to state reasons, since the Commission stated neither the number of points obtained by the successful tenderer nor the advantages of the successful tender over that of the applicant; furthermore, the Commission did not inform the applicant which of the two case studies which it submitted did not obtain a sufficient number of points;

               —

               a manifest error of assessment, in that the Evaluation Committee attributed a score of less than 70 points to one of the case studies submitted by the applicant despite the fact that the applicant set out in detail, in accordance with the specifications, the approach which it would have taken to supply the services required, the means which it would have allocated to the different tasks, the work schedule and an estimate of the costs;

               —

               a breach of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination as defined in Article 89(1) of the Financial Regulation, since the successful tenderer did not fulfil the selection criteria in respect of technical capacity.


title: Case T-313/07: Action brought on 16 August 2007 — Cemex UK Cement v Commission

text:
               6.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/25

         Action brought on 16 August 2007 — Cemex UK Cement v Commission
   (Case T-313/07)
   (2007/C 235/46)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Cemex UK Cement Ltd (Thorpe, United Kingdom), (represented by: S. Tromans, C. Thomann, lawyers, D. Wyatt QC and S. Taylor, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               to annul the Commission Decision of 12 June 2007, notified to the applicant, and received on 21 June 2007, rejecting the complaint made by Cemex UK Cement Limited concerning the national allocation plan for the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances notified by the United Kingdom in accordance with Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and the Council;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   This application seeks annulment of a Commission decision contained in a letter dated 12 June 2007 and received by the applicant on 21 June 2007, rejecting a complaint filed by the applicant concerning the national allocation plan for Phase II of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme notified by the United Kingdom in accordance with directive 2003/87/EC (1) of the European Parliament and the Council.
   The applicant complained to the European Commission that the reduction of allowances under the latter national allocation plan, in respect of the applicant's Rugby plant, along with the resulting over-allocation in respect of installations operated by the applicant's competitors, amounted to unlawful State aid, which allegedly:

               (a)

               unlawfully discriminates against the Rugby plant by failing to take sufficient account of the latter plant's period of commissioning, and by basing the allocation to the plant on a period of emissions which the UK authorities knew to be unrepresentative;

               (b)

               impedes the right of establishment of the applicant's parent company, Cemex Espana SA.

         The applicant further contends that the Commission was wrong to see no incompatible aid deriving from the ‘First Year Rule’ and accordingly wrong to decline to initiate proceedings under Article 88(2) EC. In that sense, the applicant claims the Commission was wrong to conclude that the allocation methodology of allowances applied by the United Kingdom to the Rugby plant was not discriminatory and was consistent with Commission guidance.

      (1)  Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the establishment of a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading in the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ L 275, p. 32).


title: Case C-553/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Bernhard Rintisch v Klaus Eder (Trade marks — Directive 89/104/EEC — Article 10(1) and (2)(a) — Genuine use — Use in a form, itself registered as a trade mark, differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character of the mark — Temporal effects of a judgment)

text:
               22.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/7

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Bernhard Rintisch v Klaus Eder
   (Case C-553/11) (1)

   (Trade marks - Directive 89/104/EEC - Article 10(1) and (2)(a) - Genuine use - Use in a form, itself registered as a trade mark, differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character of the mark - Temporal effects of a judgment)
   2012/C 399/10
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Bernhard Rintisch

      Respondent: Klaus Eder

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 10(1) and (2)(a) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1) — Concept of ‘use of the trade mark’ — National legislation whereby use of the trade mark in a form different from the form in which it was registered may also be regarded as use of a registered trade mark, provided that the differences do not alter the distinctive character of the mark — Registration of a trade mark in order to secure or expand the protection of another registered trade mark — Legitimate expectations — Whether a change deriving from case-law is applicable to situations that had already arisen at the date of delivery of the judgment in question

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 10(2)(a) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that the proprietor of a registered trade mark is not precluded from relying, in order to establish use of the trade mark for the purposes of that provision, on the fact that it is used in a form which differs from the form in which it was registered, without the differences between the two forms altering the distinctive character of that trade mark, even though that different form is itself registered as a trade mark.

               2.

               Article 10(2)(a) of Directive 89/104 must be interpreted as precluding an interpretation of the national provision intended to transpose it into domestic law whereby Article 10(2)(a) does not apply to a ‘defensive’ trade mark which is registered only in order to secure or expand the protection of another registered trade mark that is registered in the form in which it is used.

      (1)  OJ C 80, 17.3.2012.