title: Case C-5/00: Action brought on 6 January 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany

text:
13.5.2000              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 135/3
           ORDER OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE                                  Action brought on 6 January 2000 by the Commission of
                                                                          the European Communities against the Federal Republic
                                                                                of Germany
                         (First Chamber)
                                                                                (Case C-5/00)
                      of 25 February 2000
                                                                                (2000/C 135/04)
in Case C-418/98 P: Elsa De Persio v Commission of the
European Communities and Council of the European
                             Union (1)                                    An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
                                                                          brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties on 6 January 2000 by the Commission of the European
(Officials — Redeployment — Request to be transferred                     Communities, represented by Wolfgang Bogensberger, of its
from the Language Service to Category A — ‘Decompart-                     Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
mentalisation’ — Appeal manifestly inadmissible and mani-                 office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, also a Member of its Legal
                        festly unfounded)                                 Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                         (2000/C 135/03)                                  The Commission claims that the Court should:
                                                                          (a) Declare the Federal Republic of Germany in breach of its
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                             obligations under Articles 10 and 249 EC and under
                                                                               Articles 9(1)(a) and 10(3)(a) of Council Directive
                                                                               89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of
In Case C-418/98 P: Elsa De Persio, an official of the                         measures to encourage improvements in the safety and
Commission of the European Communities, residing in Brus-                      health of workers at work (OJ 1989 L 183, p. 1) inasmuch
sels (Belgium), represented by F. Giampietro, of the Rome Bar,                 as, by Article 6 of the Gesetz zur Umsetzung der EG
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                   Rahmenrichtlinie Arbeitsschutz und weiterer Arbeits-
G. Bounéou, 4 Rue de l’Avenir — appeal against the judgment                    schutzrichtlinien (Law for the implementation of the EC
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                     framework directive on occupational health and safety and
(Second Chamber) of 15 September 1998 in Case T-23/96 De                       other directives on occupational health and safety) of
Persio v Commission [1998] ECR-SC I-A-483 and II-1413,                         7 August 1996 (BGB 1.1., p. 1246; ‘the Law on occu-
seeking annulment of that judgment, the other parties to the                   pational health and safety’), it absolved employers
proceedings being Commission of the European Communities                       employing ten persons or less from the requirement to
(Agent: G. Valsesia, assisted by A. Dal Ferro) and Council of                  keep documents containing the results of risk assessements;
the European Union (Agents: T. Gallas and D. Canga Fano) —
the Court of Justice (First Chamber), composed of: L. Sevón,
President of the Chamber, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and M. Wathe-              (b) Order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
let, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,
has made an order on 25 February 2000, the operative part of
which is as follows:
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
1. The appeal is dismissed;
                                                                          The Commission submits that the wording of Article 9(2) of
2. Elsa Del Persio shall bear her own costs and those incurred by         Directive 89/391/EEC is clear and ambiguous, leaving no
     the Commission for the purposes of the appeal;                       doubt as to the existence of a duty to keep documents, and
                                                                          that an interpretation based on the sense and purpose of the
                                                                          directive leads to the same result. The Commission cannot
3. The Council shall bear its own costs.                                  share the view of the German Government that, in the case of
                                                                          small undertakings with a low level of risk, the wording ‘...in
                                                                          the light of the nature of the activities and size of the
                                                                          undertakings...’ permits undertakings to refrain altogether
(1) OJ C 48 of 20.2.1999.                                                 from keeping risk assessment documents.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 29 February 1996 in Case C-307/94: Commission of the European Communities v. Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 85/432/EEC)

text:
No C 133/ 10           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     4 . 5 . 96
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         ( Fifth Chamber )                                                     ( Sixth Chamber)
                      of 29 February 1996                                                     of 7 March 1996
      in Case C-307/94: Commission of the European                     in Case C-278/93 : (reference for a preliminary ruling from
              Communities v. Italian Republic (')                      the Arbeitsgericht Bremen ): Edith Freers and Hannelore
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                            Speckmann v. Deutsche Bundespost ( 1 )
                     Directive 85/432/EEC)                             (Indirect discrimination against women workers —
                           ( 96/C 133/ 19 )                            Compensation for attendance at training courses providing
                                                                       members ofstaffcommittees with the knowledge necessary
                                                                                for performing their functions)
                 (Language of tbe case: Italian)                                                  96/C 133/20 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)                              published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                       In Case C-278/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177
In Case C-307/94 : Commission of the European                          of the EC Treaty by the Arbeitsgericht Bremen ( Germany )
Communities ( Agents : Enrico Traversa and Enrico Vesco )              for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before
v. Italian Republic ( Agents : Professor Umberto Leanza,               that court between Edith Freers, Hannelore Speckmann and
assisted by Pier Giorgio Ferri ) — application for a                   Deutsche Bundespost, Article 119 of the EEC Treaty and of
declaration that, by postponing from 1 October 1987 to                 Council Directive 75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the
1 November 1990 the time-limit laid down in Article 5 of               approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to
Council Directive 85/432/EEC of 16 September 1985                      the application of the principle of equal pay for men and
concerning the coordination of provisions laid down by law,            women ( OJ No L 45 , 1975 , p . 19 ) — the Court ( Sixth
regulation or administrative action in respect of certain              Chamber ) composed of C. N. Kakouris, President of the
activities in the field of pharmacy ( OJ No L 253 , 1985 ,             Chamber, G. F. Mancini , F. A. Schockweiler, P. J. G.
p . 34 ) and by retaining until the latter date curricula for          Kapteyn, and J. L. Murray ( Rapporteur), Judges;
training in pharmacy which are incompatible with that                  Advocate-General : M. Darmon, Registrar : H. von Holstein,
Directive, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its .             Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 March 1996,
obligations under Directive 85/432 and particularly under              the operative part of which is as follows :
Articles 1 , 2 and 5 thereof — the Court ( Fifth Chamber ),
composed of D. A. O. Edward, President of the Chamber,                 1 . The compensation paid to a male or female worker for
J. C. Moitinho de Almeida , C. Gulmann, L. Sevôn                           taking part in statutorily established staffrepresentation
( Rapporteur ) and M. Wathelet, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo                     constitutes pay within the meaning of Article 119 of the
Colomer, Advocate-General; D. Louterman-Hubeau,                            EC Treaty and of Council Directive 75/117/EEC of
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment                1 0 February 1 975 on thze approximation of the laws of
on 29 February 1996 , in which it:                                         the Member States relating to the application of the
                                                                           principle of equal pay for men and women.
1 , declares that, by postponing from 1 October 1987 to                2 . Where the category of part-time workers includes a
     1 November 1 990 the time-limit laid down in Article 5                much higher number of women than men, the
     of Council Directive 85/432/EEC of 16 September 1985                  prohibition of indirect discrimination in the matter of
     concerning the coordination ofprovisions laid down by                 pay, as set out in Article 119 of the Treaty and in
     law, regulation or administrative action in respect of                Directive 75/117/EEC, precludes national legislation
     certain activities in the field of pharmacy, and by                   which, not being suitable and necessary for achieving a
     retaining until the latter date . curricula for training in           legitimate social policy aim, has the effect of limiting to
     pharmacy which are incompatible with that Directive,                  their individual working hours the compensation which
     the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations             staff committee members employed on a part-time basis
     under Directive 85/432 and particularly under                         are to receive from their employer for attending training
     Articles 1 , 2 and 5 thereof;                                         courses which impart the knowledge necessary for
                                                                           serving on staff committees and are held during the
                                                                           full-time working hours applicable in the undertaking
                                                                           but which exceed their individual part-time working
2 , orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                          hours, when staff committee members employed on a
                                                                           full-time basis receive compensation for attendance at
                                                                           the same courses on the basis of their full-time working
(') OJ No C 380 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .                                         hours .
                                                                       C ) OJ No C 178 , 30 . 6 . 1993 .


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 June 2001 In Case C-212/99: Commission of the European Comunities v Italien Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Free movement of workers — Principle of non-discrimination — Former foreign-language assistants — Recognition of acquired rights)

text:
C 227/2                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          11.8.2001
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                         (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 26 June 2001
                         of 26 June 2001
                                                                         In Case C-212/99: Commission of the European Comuni-
                                                                                ties v Italien Republic (1)
in Case C-173/99 [reference for a preliminary ruling from
the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s
Bench Division (Crown Office)]: The Queen v Secretary                    (Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Free
               of State for Trade and Industry (1)                       movement of workers — Principle of non-discrimination
                                                                         — Former foreign-language assistants — Recognition of
                                                                                acquired rights)
(Social policy — Protection of the health and safety of
workers — Directive 93/104/EC — Entitlement to paid                                                 (2001/C 227/03)
annual leave — Condition imposed by national legislation
— Completion of a qualifying period of employment with
                        the same employer)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                         (2001/C 227/02)
                                                                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                         In Case C-212/99, Commission of the European Communities
                                                                         (Agents: P. J. Kuijper and E. Traversa), supported by United
                                                                         Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent:
In Case C-173/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of            J. E. Collins, assisted by C. Lewis) against Italian Republic
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the High Court of                (Agent: U. Leanza, assisted by G. Aiello) — application for a
Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Crown              declaration that, because of the administrative and contractual
Office) (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland)           practices applied by certain public universities, which result in
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that          the non-recognition of the acquired rights of foreign-language
court between The Queen v Secretary of State for Trade and               assistants, although such recognition is guaranteed to its
Industry, ex parte: Broadcasting, Entertainment, Cinemato-               national work-force, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
graphic and Theatre Union (BECTU) — on the interpretation                obligations under Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now Article 39
of Article 7 of Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November               EC) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann,
1993 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of work-             President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet, F. Macken, N. Col-
ing time (OJ 1993 L 307, p. 18) — the Court (Sixth Chamber),             neric and J. N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), Judges;
composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, V. Skour-             L. A. Geelgoed, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator,
is, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), N. Colneric and J.N. Cunha                for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 26 June 2001, in
Rodrigues, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,             which it:
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
26 June 2001, in which it has ruled:
                                                                         1.    Declares that by not guaranteeing recognition of the rights
                                                                               acquired by foreign-language assistants, who have become
                                                                               associates and linguistic experts in their mother-tongue,
Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993                although such recognition is guaranteed to its national work-
concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time does            force, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
not allow a Member State to adopt national rules under which a                 under Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
worker does not begin to accrue rights to paid annual leave until he           Article 39 EC).
has completed a minimum period of 13 weeks’ uninterrupted
employment with the same employer.                                       2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                         3.    Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
                                                                               Ireland to pay its own costs.
(1) OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.


title: Case T-502/09: Action brought on 11 December 2009 — Inovis v OHIM — Sonaecom (INOVIS)

text:
               27.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/35

         Action brought on 11 December 2009 — Inovis v OHIM — Sonaecom (INOVIS)
   (Case T-502/09)
   2010/C 51/68
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Inovis, Inc. (Alpharetta, United States) (represented by: R. Black and B. Ladas, Solicitors)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sonaecom — Serviços de Communicações, S.A. (Maia, Portugal)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 September 2009 in case R 1691/2008-1;

               —

               Direct the Board of Appeal of the defendant to register the application for the Community trade mark; and

               —

               Order the defendant to bear its own costs and those of the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark “INOVIS”, for goods and services in classes 9, 35, 38 and 42

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

      Mark or sign cited: Portuguese trade mark registration of the word mark “NOVIS”, for goods and services in classes 9, 35, 37, 38, 41 and 42

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal wrongly: (i) ignored the clear differences between the respective goods and services covered by the trade marks concerned, including that it erroneously considered that the earlier mark covered classes 9 and 42, whereas registration for such classes was refused by the Portuguese Trade mark Office, and that, in any event, such registration was not substantiated during the proceedings; (ii) ignored the clear conceptual differences between the trade marks concerned; and (iii) held that there was a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned.


title: Case T-326/14: Judgment of the General Court of 19 April 2016 — Novomatic v EUIPO — Granini France (HOT JOKER) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark HOT JOKER — Earlier national figurative mark Joker — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 — Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               30.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 191/24

         Judgment of the General Court of 19 April 2016 — Novomatic v EUIPO — Granini France (HOT JOKER)
   (Case T-326/14) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark HOT JOKER - Earlier national figurative mark Joker - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 - Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 191/30)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Novomatic AG (Gumpoldskirchen, Austria) (represented by: W. Mosing, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Granini France (Mâcon, France) (represented by: D. Lichtlen, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 February 2014 (Case R 589/2013-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Granini France and Novomatic AG.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Novomatic AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 245, 28.7.2014.


title: Case T-649/14: Action brought on 29 August 2014 — NTS Energie- und Transportsysteme v OHIM — Schütz (X-Windwerk)

text:
               10.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 395/55

      Action brought on 29 August 2014 — NTS Energie- und Transportsysteme v OHIM — Schütz (X-Windwerk)
      (Case T-649/14)
      (2014/C 395/68)
      Language in which the application was lodged: German

         Parties

         Applicant: NTS Energie- und Transportsysteme GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: S. Mach, lawyer)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Schütz GmbH & Co. KGaA (Selters, Germany)

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 23 May 2014 in Case R 978/2013-1

         Pleas in law and main arguments

         Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

         Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘X-Windwerk’ for services in Classes 39, 40 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 10 719 466

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

         Mark or sign cited in opposition: the word mark ‘Wind Werk’ for goods and services in Classes 7, 9, 37 and 42

         Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was rejected

         Decision of the Board of Appeal: the Opposition Division’s decision was annulled and the application for the Community trade mark was rejected

         Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case C-109/07: Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 May 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Prud'homie de pêche (France)) — Jonathan Pilato v Jean-Claude Bourgault (Meaning of court or tribunal of a Member State — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court of Justice)

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/15

         Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 May 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Prud'homie de pêche (France)) — Jonathan Pilato v Jean-Claude Bourgault
   (Case C-109/07) (1)

   (Meaning of court or tribunal of a Member State - Lack of jurisdiction of the Court of Justice)
   (2008/C 209/20)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Prud'homie de pêche
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Jonathan Pilato

      Defendant: Jean-Claude Bourgault
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Prud'homie de pêche de Martigues — Interpretation of Article 11a of Council Regulation (EC) No 894/97 of 29 April 1997 laying down certain technical measures for the conservation of fishery resources (OJ 1997 L 132, p. 1), as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1239/98 of 8 June 1998 (OJ 1998 L 171, p. 1) — Definition of ‘drift-net’ — Whether that definition includes the ‘thonaille’ — Environmental objective of the prohibitive measure laid down in Article 11a — Validity of this provision in the light, in particular, of the legal basis used for its adoption
   Operative part of the order
   The Court of Justice of the European Communities clearly does not have jurisdiction to reply to the questions referred by the Prud'homie de pêche de Martigues by decision of 17 December 2006.

      (1)  OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.


title: Case F-43/06: Action brought on  21 April 2006  — Tuomo Talvela v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               17.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/38

         Action brought on 21 April 2006 — Tuomo Talvela v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case F-43/06)
   (2006/C 143/73)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Tuomo Talvela (Oslo, Norway) (represented by: E. Boigelot, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Forms of order sought

               —

               annul the applicant's Career Development Review (CDR) for the period from 1 January 2004 to 31 December 2004, and also the decision of 31 August 2005 of the appeal assessor confirming and definitively approving the said CDR;

               —

               annul the implicit decision to reject the applicant's request of 25 February 2005 and also any act subsequent and/or relating to that decision;

               —

               annul the decision of 11 January 2006 of the Appointing Authority, received on 13 January 2006, rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant on 23 September 2005 and seeking to have the contested decisions annulled;

               —

               award damages for pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss and also for loss of career prospects, evaluated on equitable principles at EUR 4 000 and subject to amendment in the course of the proceedings;

               —

               order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant pleads, first, infringement of the second paragraph of Article 25, Article 26 and Article 43 of the Staff Regulations, and also of the general implementing provisions relating to the application of Article 43, as adopted by the defendant on 3 March 2004, of the specific rules for staff assigned to the External Service and of the Guide to staff reports.
   He also claims that the defendant infringed the general implementing provisions adopted by it on 28 April 2004 concerning the conduct of administrative investigations and disciplinary proceedings.
   Next, he alleges infringement of the essential procedural requirements, disregard of the general principles of law, such as the rights of the defence, the principle of sound administration and the duty to pay due regard to the welfare of officials, the principle of equal treatment and those requiring the Appointing Authority to adopt a decision solely on legally valid grounds, that is, grounds which are relevant and not vitiated by manifest errors of assessment, fact or law.
   Lastly, the applicant claims that by adopting the disputed assessment for the 2004 exercise in the circumstances described, the Appointing Authority manifestly failed to make a correct application and interpretation of the provisions of the Staff Regulations and of the abovementioned principles. Its decision is therefore based on reasons which are incorrect both in fact and in law. The applicant has therefore been placed in an administrative situation which is both discriminatory and contrary to his legitimate expectations and interests.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 15 October 1998 in Case C-284/97: Commission of the European Communities v. French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 93/40/EEC - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
5.12.98                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 378/3
experimental and other scientific purposes (OJ L 358,                Chamber, G. Hirsch, G. F. Mancini, H. Ragnemalm and
18.12.1986, p. 1), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to              R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate-
fulfil its obligations under that directive and the EC Treaty        General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on
Ð the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: J.-P.                      15 October 1998, in which it:
Puissochet, President of the Chamber, P. Jann, C.
Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward and L. Sevón (Rapporteur),
Judges, F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General; R. Grass,                    1. Declares that by not adopting within the prescribed
Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 October 1998, in                    period all the measures necessary to comply with
which it:                                                                 Articles 14 and 22 of Council Directive 86/609/EEC
                                                                          of 24 November 1986 on the approximation of laws,
                                                                          regulations and administrative provisions of the
1. Declares that by not adopting within the prescribed                    Member States relating to the protection of animals
     period all the measures necessary to comply with                     used for experimental and other scientific purposes,
     Articles 14 and 22 of Council Directive 86/609/EEC                   the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its
     of 24 November 1986 on the approximation of laws,                    obligations under that directive.
     regulations and administrative provisions of the
     Member States relating to the protection of animals
     used for experimental and other scientific purposes,
                                                                     2. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
     the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its
     obligations under that directive.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 295, 27.9.1997.
2. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 295, 27.9.1997.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 15 October 1998
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        (Sixth Chamber)                                     in Case C-284/97: Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities v. French Republic (1)
                      of 15 October 1998
                                                                     (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations Ð
       in Case C-283/97: Commission of the European                  Directive 93/40/EEC Ð Failure to transpose within the
            Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium (1)                                          prescribed period)
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations Ð                                       (98/C 378/06)
Directive 92/73/EEC Ð Failure to transpose within the
                       prescribed period)
                         (98/C 378/05)                                               (Language of the case: French)
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                               published in the European Court Reports)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
           published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                     In Case C-284/97: Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities (Agents: Fernando Castillo de la Torre
In Case C-283/97: Commission of the European                         and Olivier Couvert-CasteÂra) v. French Republic
Communities (Agents: Fernando Castillo de la Torre and               (Agent: Kareen Rispal-Bellinger and FreÂdeÂric Pascal) Ð
Olivier Couvert-CasteÂra) v. Kingdom of Belgium (Agent:              Application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt the
Jan Devadder) Ð Application for a declaration that, by               laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary
failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative            to comply with Council Directive 93/40/EEC of 14 June
provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive                1993 amending Directives 81/851/EEC and 81/852/EEC
92/73/EEC of 22 September 1992 widening the scope                    on the approximation of the laws of the Member States
of Directives 65/65/EEC and 75/319/EEC on the                        relating to veterinary medicinal products (OJ L 214,
approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation             24.8.1993, p. 31), the French Republic has failed to fulfil
or administrative action relating to medicinal products              its obligations under the EC Treaty and that directive, Ð
and laying down additional provisions on homeopathic                 the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: P. J. G.
medicinal products (OJ L 297, 13.10.1992, p. 8), the                 Kapteyn, President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch, G. F.
Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations              Mancini, H. Ragnemalm and R. Schintgen (Rapporteur),
under the EC Treaty and that directive Ð the Court (Sixth            Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar,
Chamber), composed of: P. J. G. Kapteyn, President of the            has given a judgment on 15 October 1998, in which it:
 ---pagebreak--- C 378/4                 EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      5.12.98
1. Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed                excavator-loaders, the Italian Republic has failed to
     period the laws, regulations and administrative                       fulfil its obligations under that directive;
     provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
     93/40/EEC of 14 June 1993 amending Directives 81/                2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
     851/EEC and 81/852/EEC on the approximation of
     the laws of the Member States relating to veterinary
                                                                      (1) OJ C 331, 1.11.1997.
     medicinal products, the French Republic has failed to
     fulfil its obligations under that directive;
2. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 318, 18.10.1997.                                                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 15 October 1998
                                                                             in Case C-326/97: Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium (1)
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations Ð
                         (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                      Directive 95/27/EC Ð Failure to transpose within the
                                                                                prescribed period)
                       of 15 October 1998
                                                                                (98/C 378/08)
       in Case C-324/97: Commission of the European
                Communities v. Italian Republic (1)                                     (Language of the case: French)
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations Ð
Directive 95/27/EC Ð Failure to transpose within the                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                        prescribed period)                                       published in the European Court Reports)
                          (98/C 378/07)
                                                                      In Case C-326/97: Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities (Agent: Paolo Stancanelli) v. Kingdom of
                  (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                      Belgium (Agent: Anni Snoecx) Ð Application for a
                                                                      declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                                                                      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be        European Parliament and Council Directive 95/27/EC of
           published in the European Court Reports)                   29 June 1995 amending Council Directive 86/662/EEC on
                                                                      the limitation of noise emitted by hydraulic excavators,
In Case C-324/97: Commission of the European                          rope-operated excavators, dozers, loaders and excavator-
Communities (Agent: Paolo Stancanelli) v. Italian Republic            loaders (OJ L 168, 18.7.1995, p. 14), or, in any event, by
(Agent: Umberto Leanza, assisted by Pier Giorgio Ferri) Ð             not communicating them to the Commission, the
Application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt the           Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations
laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary             under that directive, Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber),
to comply with European Parliament and Council                        composed of: P. J. G. Kapteyn, President of the Chamber,
Directive 95/27/EC of 29 June 1995 amending Council                   G. Hirsch, G. F. Mancini, H. Ragnemalm and R.
Directive 86/662/EEC on the limitation of noise emitted               Schintgen (Rapporteur), Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate-
by hydraulic excavators, rope-operated excavators, dozers,            General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on
loaders and excavator-loaders (OJ L 168, 18.7.1995,                   15 October 1998, in which it:
p. 14), or, in any event, by not communicating them to the
Commission, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its             1. Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
obligations under that directive, Ð the Court (Sixth                       period the laws, regulations and administrative
Chamber), composed of: P. J. G. Kapteyn, President of the                  provisions necessary to comply with European
Chamber, G. Hirsch, G. F. Mancini, H. Ragnemalm and                        Parliament and Council Directive 95/27/EC of 29 June
R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate-                  1995 amending Council Directive 86/662/EEC on the
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on                      limitation of noise emitted by hydraulic excavators,
15 October 1998, in which it:                                              rope-operated excavators, dozers, loaders and
                                                                           excavator-loaders, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed
                                                                           to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
1. Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
     period the laws, regulations and administrative
     provisions necessary to comply with European                     2. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
     Parliament and Council Directive 95/27/EC of 29 June
     1995 amending Council Directive 86/662/EEC on the                (1) OJ C 331, 1.11.1997.
     limitation of noise emitted by hydraulic excavators,
     rope-operated excavators, dozers, loaders and


title: Case C-562/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 May 2017 — Kingdom of Sweden v Darius Nicolai Spirlea, Mihaela Spirlea, European Commission, Czech Republic, Kingdom of Denmark, Kingdom of Spain, Republic of Finland (Appeal — Right of public access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Third indent of Article 4(2) — Exceptions to the right of access to documents — Incorrect interpretation — Protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits — Overriding public interest justifying the disclosure of documents — General presumption of confidentiality — Documents relating to an EU Pilot procedure)

text:
               24.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/2

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 May 2017 — Kingdom of Sweden v Darius Nicolai Spirlea, Mihaela Spirlea, European Commission, Czech Republic, Kingdom of Denmark, Kingdom of Spain, Republic of Finland
   (Case C-562/14 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Right of public access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Third indent of Article 4(2) - Exceptions to the right of access to documents - Incorrect interpretation - Protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits - Overriding public interest justifying the disclosure of documents - General presumption of confidentiality - Documents relating to an EU Pilot procedure))
   (2017/C 239/02)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk, C. Meyer-Seitz, U. Persson, N. Otte Widgren, E. Karlsson and L. Swedenborg, acting as Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Darius Nicolai Spirlea, Mihaela Spirlea, European Commission (represented by: H. Krämer and P. Costa de Oliveira, acting as Agents), Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, D. Hadroušek and J. Vláčil, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: C. Thorning, acting as Agent), Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M.J. García-Valdecasas Dorrego, acting as Agent), Republic of Finland (represented by: S. Hartikainen, acting as Agent)

      Intervener in support of the European Commission: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and A. Lippstreu, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission;

               3.

               Orders the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of Spain and the Republic of Finland to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 46, 9.2.2015.


title: Case T-193/00: Action brought on 24 July 2000 by Bernard Felix against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 273/16             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                   23.9.2000
Action brought on 24 July 2000 by Bernard Felix against                residing at Arlon (Belgium), represented by Jean-Noël Louis
      the Commission of the European Communities                       and Véronique Peere, of the Brussels Bar.
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
                       (Case T-193/00)
                                                                       —     annul the decision of the selection board in competition
                                                                             COM/A/12/98 awarding him, in his oral test, a mark
                       (2000/C 273/27)                                       lower than the minimum required and excluding him
                                                                             from the reserve list;
                 (Language of the case: French)                        —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the             The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in
European Communities on 24 July 2000 by Bernard Felix,                 Case T-192/00.


title: Judgment of the Court of 25 February 2003 in Case C-59/01: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 92/49/EEC — Freedom to set premiums and abolition of prior or systematic controls over premiums and contracts — Gathering of information)

text:
C 101/6                 EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                             26.4.2003
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         (Sixth Chamber)                                                             of 25 February 2003
                         of 6 March 2003
                                                                             in Case C-59/01: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Italian Republic ( 1)
in Case C-14/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Verwaltungsgericht Hannover): Molkerei Wagenfeld
Karl Niemann GmbH & Co. KG v Bezirksregierung                                (Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
                            Hannover (1)                                     92/49/EEC — Freedom to set premiums and abolition of
                                                                             prior or systematic controls over premiums and contracts —
                                                                                Gathering of information)
(Common organisation of the markets — Milk and milk
products — Scheme of aid for skimmed milk — Validity of
Regulation (EC) No 2799/1999 — Powers of the Com-
mission (Article 11(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999)                                                 (2003/C 101/11)
— Prohibition of discrimination (Article 34(2) EC) —
Principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate
                            expectations)                                                         (Language of the case: Italian)
                          (2003/C 101/10)                                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                   (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                            In Case C-59/01, Commission of the European Communities
                                                                             (Agents: C. Tufvesson and A. Aresu) v Italian Republic (Agent:
                                                                             U. Leanza, assisted by G. de Bellis): Application for a declaration
                                                                             that, by introducing and maintaining in force rate-freezing
In Case C-14/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234                    rules applicable to all contracts of insurance in respect of third-
EC by the Verwaltungsgericht Hannover (Germany) for a                        party liability arising from the use of motor vehicles in relation
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                    to risks situated within Italian territory, without distinguishing
court between Molkerei Wagenfeld Karl Niemann GmbH &                         between insurance companies having their head office in Italy
Co. KG and Bezirksregierung Hannover, on the validity of                     and those carrying on business in Italy through branch offices
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2799/1999 of 17 December                       or under the freedom to provide services, in breach of:
1999 laying down detailed rules for applying Regulation (EC)
No 1255/1999 as regards the grant of aid for skimmed milk                    (a)   the principle of the freedom to set premiums and the
and skimmed-milk powder intended for animal feed and the                           abolition of prior or systematic controls over premiums
sale of such skimmed-milk powder (OJ 1999 L 340, p. 3), the                        and contracts, as dealt with in Articles 6, 29 and 39 of
Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen, President                        Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992 on the
of the Second Chamber, acting for the President of the Sixth                       coordination of laws, regulations and administrative
Chamber, V. Skouris (Rapporteur), F. Macken, N. Colneric and                       provisions relating to direct insurance other than life
J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; M.-                      assurance and amending Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/
F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given                   357/EEC (third non-life insurance Directive) (OJ 1992
a judgment on 6 March 2003, in which it has ruled:                                 L 228, p. 1);
Examination of the question referred for a preliminary ruling has            (b)   the provisions of Article 44 of that directive, which
revealed no factor of such a kind as to affect the legality of                     concern arrangements for gathering information on the
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2799/1999 of 17 December                             amount of the premiums, claims and commission, the
1999 laying down detailed rules for applying Regulation (EC)                       frequency and average cost of claims, and the exchange
No 1255/1999 as regards the grant of aid for skimmed milk and                      of information between the regulatory authorities of the
skimmed-milk powder intended for animal feed and the sale of such                  home Member State and those of the host Member State,
skimmed-milk powder.
                                                                             the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
( 1) OJ C 79 of 10.3.2001.                                                   that directive, the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias,
                                                                             President, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet and C.W.A. Timmer-
                                                                             mans (Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann,
                                                                             F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues
 ---pagebreak--- 26.4.2003                EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                               C 101/7
(Rapporteur) and A. Rosas, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General;                (Agents: K.-D. Borchardt and M. Niejahr), which contends that
L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given             the Court — composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, (President),
a judgment on 25 February 2003, in which it:                                  J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and
                                                                              C.W.A. Timmermans, (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann,
                                                                              D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, P. Jann and V. Skouris, F. Macken
1.    Declares that, by introducing and maintaining in force rate-            and N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and
      freezing rules applicable to all contracts of insurance in respect      A. Rosas, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass,
      of third-party liability arising from the use of motor vehicles in
                                                                              Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 March 2003, in which it:
      relation to risks situated within Italian territory, without
      distinguishing between insurance companies having their head
      office in Italy and those conducting their business in Italy            1.    Dismisses the appeal;
      through branch offices or under the freedom to provide services,
      in breach of the principle of freedom to set premiums referred to
      in Articles 6, 29 and 39 of Council Directive 92/49/EEC of              2.    Orders T Port GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.
      18 June 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and
      administrative provisions relating to direct insurance other than
      life assurance and amending Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/               (1 ) OJ C 245 of 1 September 2001.
      357/EEC (third non-life insurance Directive), the Italian
      Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;
3.    Orders each party to bear its own costs.
( 1) OJ C 134 of 5.5.2001.                                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 27 February 2003
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       in Case C-320/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                              the Arbeitsgericht Lübeck): Wiebke Busch v Klinikum
                                                                                Neustadt GmbH & Co. Betriebs-KG (1)
                          of 6 March 2003
                                                                              (Equal treatment for men and women — Article 2(1) of
in Case C-213/01 P: T Port GmbH & Co. KG v Commission
                                                                                Directive 76/207/EEC — Protection of pregnant women)
                of the European Communities ( 1)
(Appeal — Bananas — Imports from ACP States and                                                         (2003/C 101/13)
non-member countries — Calculation of annual reference
quantity allocated to operators — Imports in accordance
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
with interim measures ordered by a national court in
       interlocutory proceedings — Action for damages)
                                                                              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                           (2003/C 101/12)                                                       in the European Court Reports)
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                              In Case C-320/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published        EC by the Arbeitsgericht Lübeck (Germany) for a preliminary
                    in the European Court Reports)                            ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
                                                                              Wiebke Busch and Klinikum Neustadt GmbH & Co. Betriebs-
                                                                              KG, on the interpretation of Article 2(1) of Council Directive
                                                                              76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the
In Case C-213/01 P: T Port GmbH & Co. KG, established in                      principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards
Hamburg (Germany) (lawyer: G. Meier) — appeal against the                     access to employment, vocational training and promotion,
judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of                    and working conditions (OJ 1976 L 39, p. 40), the Court (Fifth
20 March 2001 in Case T-52/99 (ECR II-981), seeking to have                   Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), President
that judgment set aside in part, the other party to the                       of the Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans, P. Jann, S. von Bahr
proceedings being Commission of the European Communities,                     and A. Rosas, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate


title: Case T-444/16: Action brought on 9 August 2016 — Vasco Group and Astra Sweets v Commission

text:
               26.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 350/26

         Action brought on 9 August 2016 — Vasco Group and Astra Sweets v Commission
   (Case T-444/16)
   (2016/C 350/32)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Vasco Group (Dilsen-Stokkem, Belgium) and Astra Sweets (Turnhout, Belgium) (represented by: H. Gilliams, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission decision of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption state aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by the Kingdom of Belgium;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Articles 2-4 of the Decision;

               —

               in any event, annul Articles 2-4 of that Decision in so far as these Articles (a) require recovery from entities other than the entities that have been issued an ‘excess profit ruling’ as defined in the Decision and (b) require the recovery of an amount equal to the beneficiary’s tax savings, without allowing Belgium to take into account an actual upwards adjustment by another tax administration;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment, excess of power and failure to provide adequate reasons in so far as the Commission decision of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption state aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by the Kingdom of Belgium alleges the existence of an aid scheme.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 107 TFUE and of the duty to state reasons and manifest error of assessment in so far as the contested decision qualifies the purported scheme as a selective measure.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 107 TFUE and manifest error of assessment in so far as the contested decision asserts that the purported scheme gives rise to an advantage.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 107 TFUE, infringement of legitimate expectations, manifest error of assessment, excess of power and failure to provide adequate reasons in so far as the contested decision order Belgium to recover aid.


title: Joined Cases C-237/11 and C-238/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 December 2012 — French Republic v European Parliament (Actions for annulment — Law governing the institutions — Calendar of plenary part-sessions of the European Parliament for 2012 and 2013 — Protocols on the location of the seats of the institutions and of certain bodies, offices, agencies and departments of the European Union)

text:
               9.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/7

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 December 2012 — French Republic v European Parliament
   (Joined Cases C-237/11 and C-238/11) (1)

   (Actions for annulment - Law governing the institutions - Calendar of plenary part-sessions of the European Parliament for 2012 and 2013 - Protocols on the location of the seats of the institutions and of certain bodies, offices, agencies and departments of the European Union)
   2013/C 38/06
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: French Republic (represented by: E. Belliard, G. de Bergues and A. Adam, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: C. Pennera, N. Lorenz and E. Waldherr, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: C. Schiltz, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Actions for annulment — Vote of the European Parliament of 9 March 2011 concerning the calendar of the session periods of the Parliament for 2012 — Calendar laying down that two of the twelve monthly plenary sessions are to be held during the same week in October — Infringement of Protocol No 3 and Protocol No 6 on the location of the seats of the institutions and of certain bodies, offices agencies and departments of the European Union — Place of work of the European Parliament.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the votes of the European Parliament of 9 March 2011 adopting the Parliament’s calendar of part-sessions for 2012 and 2013 to the extent that they do not provide for 12 monthly plenary part-sessions to be held in Strasbourg in 2012 and 2013;

               2.

               Orders the European Parliament to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 226, 30.7.2011.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Full Court) 23 March 2004 — In Case C-138/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main): Brian Francis Collins v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (‘Freedom of movement for persons — Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39 EC) — Concept of “worker” — Social security allowance paid to jobseekers — Residence requirement — Citizenship of the European Union’)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/9

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (FULL COURT)

   23 March 2004
   In Case C-138/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main): Brian Francis Collins v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1)

   (‘Freedom of movement for persons - Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39 EC) - Concept of “worker” - Social security allowance paid to jobseekers - Residence requirement - Citizenship of the European Union’)
   (2004/C 106/14)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case C-138/02: References to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Social Security Commissioner (United Kingdom) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Brian Francis Collins and Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, on the interpretation of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475), as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2434/92 of 27 July 1992 (OJ 1992 L 245, p. 1), and of Council Directive 68/360/EEC of 15 October 1968 on the abolition of restrictions on movement and residence within the Community for workers of Member States and their families (OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 485), the Court (Full Court), composed of: V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, C. Gulmann, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur) and A. Rosas, Presidents of Chambers, A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen, N. Colneric and S. von Bahr, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 March 2004, in which it has ruled:

               1.

               A person in the circumstances of the appellant in the main proceedings is not a worker for the purposes of Title II of Part I of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2434/92 of 27 July 1992. It is, however, for the national court or tribunal to establish whether the term “worker” as referred to by the national legislation at issue is to be understood in that sense.

               2.

               A person in the circumstances of the appellant in the main proceedings does not have a right to reside in the United Kingdom solely on the basis of Council Directive 68/360/EEC of 15 October 1968 on the abolition of restrictions on movement and residence within the Community for workers of Member States and their families.

               3.

               The right to equal treatment laid down in Article 48(2) of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39(2) EC), read in conjunction with Articles 6 and 8 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 12 EC and 17 EC), does not preclude national legislation which makes entitlement to a jobseeker's allowance conditional on a residence requirement, in so far as that requirement may be justified on the basis of objective considerations that are independent of the nationality of the persons concerned and proportionate to the legitimate aim of the national provisions.

      (1)  OJ C 169 of 13.07.2002.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 October 1999 in Case C-253/97: Italian Republic v Commission of the European Communities (EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — 1993)

text:
19.2.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                                C 47/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                           in respect of the expenditure of the Guarantee Section of the
                                                                                European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund for 1993,
                                                                                in so far as it made an adjustment of ITL 778 000 000 for late
                          (Fifth Chamber)                                        payment for intervention purchases of beef and veal;
                                                                             2. Dismisses the remainder of the application;
                       of 28 October 1999
                                                                             3. Orders the Italian Republic to pay four-fifths of the costs and the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities to pay one-fifth.
in Case C-253/97: Italian Republic v Commission of the
                   European Communities (1)
                                                                             (1) OJ C 295 of 27.9.1997.
         (EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — 1993)
                           (2000/C 47/01)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                              of 11 November 1999
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             in Case C-184/97: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Federal Republic of Germany(1)
In Case C-253/97: Italian Republic (Agent: Professor U. Leanza,
assisted by G. De Bellis) v Commission of the European                       (Failure to fulfil obligations — Council Directive
Communities (Agent: P. Ziotti, assisted by A. Dal Ferro) —                     76/464/EEC — Aquatic pollution — Failure to transpose)
application for partial annulment of Commission Decision
97/333/EC of 23 April 1997 on the clearance of the accounts
                                                                                (2000/C 47/02)
presented by the Member States in respect of the expenditure
of the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guid-
ance and Guarantee Fund for 1993 (OJ 1997 L 139, p. 30), in                                      (Language of the case: German)
so far as it concerns the Italian Republic — the Court (Fifth
Chamber), composed of: J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, President
of the Sixth Chamber, acting as President of the Fifth Chamber,              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
L. Sevón, J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann and M. Wathelet (Rappor-                                    in the European Court Reports)
teur), Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; H. von Holstein,
Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 28 October 1999,                   In Case C-184/97: Commission of the European Communities
in which it:                                                                 (Agent: G. zur Hausen) v Federal Republic of Germany
                                                                             (Agents: E. Röder and C.-D. Quassowski) — application for a
1. Annuls Commission Decision 97/333/EC of 23 April 1997                     declaration that by not adopting, under Article 7 of Council
    on the clearance of the accounts presented by the Member States          Directive 76/464/EEC of 4 May 1976 on pollution caused by


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 May 2001 in Case C-258/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arrondissementsrechtbank 's-Gravenhage): BASF AG v Bureau voor de Industriële Eigendom (BIE) [Regulation (EC) No 1610/96 — Plant protection products — Supplementary protection certificate]

text:
C 200/14                  EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                          14.7.2001
(Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending                   ’s-Gravenhage (District Court, The Hague) (Netherlands) for a
before that court between Agorà Srl and Ente Autonomo Fiera                   preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
Internazionale di Milano, and between Excelsior Snc di Pedrotti               court between BASF AG and Bureau voor de Industriële
Bruna & C. and Ente Autonomo Fiera Internazionale di Milano,                  Eigendom (BIE) — on the interpretation of Articles 1 and 3 of
Ciftat soc. coop. arl — on the interpretation of Article 1(b) of              Regulation (EC) No 1610/96 of the European Parliament and
Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the                   of the Council of 23 July 1996 concerning the creation of
coordination of procedures for the award of public service                    a supplementary protection certificate for plant protection
contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1) — the Court (Fifth Chamber),                  products (OJ 1996 L 198, p. 30) — the Court (Sixth Chamber),
composed of: A. La Pergola, President of the Chamber,                         composed of: C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), President of the
M. Wathelet, D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and                          Chamber, V. Skouris, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen and
L. Sevón, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,                     F. Macken, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; D. Louter-
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment              man-Hubeau, Head of Division, for the Registrar, has given a
on 10 May 2001, in which it has ruled:                                        judgment on 10 May 2001, in which it has ruled:
A body
—     whose object is to carry on activities relating to the organisation     1.   The concept of a product within the meaning of Article 3 of
      of fairs, exhibitions and other similar initiatives;                         Regulation (EC) No 1610/96 of the European Parliament and
                                                                                of the Council of 23 July 1996 concerning the creation of a
—     which is non-profit-making but is administered according to                  supplementary protection certificate for plant protection products
      the criteria of performance, efficiency and cost-effectiveness; and          covers chemical elements and their compounds, as they occur
                                                                                naturally or by manufacture, including any impurity inevitably
—     which operates in a competitive environment
                                                                                resulting from the manufacturing process, which have general
does not constitute a body governed by public law for the purposes of              or specific action against harmful organisms or on plants, parts
the second subparagraph of Article 1(b) of Council Directive                       of plants or plant products.
92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of
procedures for the award of public service contracts.
                                                                              2.   Two products which differ only in the proportion of the active
                                                                                chemical compound to the impurity they contain, one having a
(1) OJ C 246 of 28.9.1999.                                                         greater percentage of the impurity than the other, must be
                                                                                regarded as the same product within the meaning of Article 3
                                                                                of Regulation No 1610/96.
                                                                              3.   The fact that a marketing authorisation must be obtained for
                                                                                the new plant protection product which has a different
                                                                                proportion of active chemical compound to impurity from that
                                                                                of the former plant protection product is not relevant for the
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                           purposes of establishing whether or not the constituent products
                                                                                of those plant protection products are the same.
                           (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                              4.   The conditions laid down in Article 3(1)(a) and (d) of
                            of 10 May 2001                                         Regulation No 1610/96 are, in any event, not all satisfied
                                                                                where a product, as a plant protection product, manufactured
in Case C-258/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                          according to a patented process and the subject of a marketing
the Arrondissementsrechtbank ’s-Gravenhage): BASF AG                               authorisation, differs from a previously authorised product, as a
       v Bureau voor de Industriële Eigendom (BIE) (1)                             plant protection product, only in the proportion of the active
                                                                                chemical compound to the impurity it contains, the percentage
                                                                                of impurity being greater in the older product than in the new
[Regulation (EC) No 1610/96 — Plant protection products                            one, and where that process patent has been designated as the
             — Supplementary protection certificate]                               basic patent.
                            (2001/C 200/25)
                      (Language of the case: Dutch)                           (1) OJ C 265 of 18.9.1999.
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-258/99: reference to the Court under Article 234
of the EC Treaty from the Arrondissementsrechtbank


title: Case T-341/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 March 2008 — Compagnie générale de diététique v OHIM (GARUM) (Community trade mark — Application for Community trade mark GARUM — Absolute ground for refusal — Relevant public — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               26.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/24

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 March 2008 — Compagnie générale de diététique v OHIM (GARUM)
   (Case T-341/06) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for Community trade mark GARUM - Absolute ground for refusal - Relevant public - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2008/C 107/40)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Compagnie générale de diététique SAS (Caen, France) (represented by: J.-J Evrard and T. de Haan, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, agent)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 September 2006 (Case R 1401/2005-1) concerning application for registration of the word sign GARUM as a Community trade mark.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 7 September 2006 (Case R 1401/2005-1).

               2.

               Orders OHIM to pay its own costs and the costs of Compagnie générale de diététique SAS.

      (1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.


title: Case C-412/05 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 April 2007 — Alcon Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Biofarma SA (Appeals — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) — Relative ground for refusal of registration — Likelihood of confusion — Article 43(2) and (3) — Genuine use — New plea — Word mark TRAVATAN — Opposition by proprietor of earlier national trade mark TRIVASTAN )

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/13

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 April 2007 — Alcon Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Biofarma SA
   (Case C-412/05 P) (1)

   (Appeals - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Relative ground for refusal of registration - Likelihood of confusion - Article 43(2) and (3) - Genuine use - New plea - Word mark ‘TRAVATAN’ - Opposition by proprietor of earlier national trade mark ‘TRIVASTAN’)
   (2007/C 96/20)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Appellant: Alcon Inc. (represented by: G. Breen, solicitor, and J. Gleeson SC)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent) Biofarma SA (represented by: V. Gil Vega and A. Ruiz López, laywers)
   Re:
   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 22 September 2005 in Case T-130/03 Alcon v OHIM dismissing an action for annulment brought by the applicant for the Community trade mark ‘TRAVATAN ’in respect of goods in Class 5 against Decision R 968/2001-3 of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 30 January 2003, which had dismissed the appeal brought against the decision of the Opposition Division refusing registration of that mark in the opposition proceedings brought by the proprietor of the national word mark ‘TRIVASTAN ’in respect of goods in Class 5
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Alcon Inc. to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM);

               3.

               Orders Biofarma SA to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 60, 11.3.2006.


title: Case T-403/09: Order of the General Court of 30 June 2011 — Tecnoprocess v Commission (Action for damages — Unjust enrichment — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Inadmissibility)

text:
               24.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/18

         Order of the General Court of 30 June 2011 — Tecnoprocess v Commission
   (Case T-403/09) (1)

   (Action for damages - Unjust enrichment - Application initiating proceedings - Formal requirements - Inadmissibility)
   2011/C 282/34
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Tecnoprocess Srl (Rome, Italy) (represented by: A. Majoli, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bordes and L. Prete, Agents)

      Re:

   Application, first, for a declaration that the European Commission and the delegations of the European Union to Morocco and Nigeria have been unjustly enriched and, second, for an order that the Commission pay the sum of EUR 114 069,94 and the interest due on that sum.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Tecnoprocess Srl is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 297, 5.12.2009.


title: Case C-85/13: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 10 April 2014  — European Commission v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 91/271/EEC — Treatment of urban waste water — Articles 3 to 5 and 10 — Annex I(A) and (B))

text:
               10.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/11

         Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 10 April 2014 — European Commission v Italian Republic
   (Case C-85/13) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 91/271/EEC - Treatment of urban waste water - Articles 3 to 5 and 10 - Annex I(A) and (B)))
   2014/C 175/13
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Manhaeve and L. Cimaglia, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and M. Russo, avvocato dello Stato)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt or notify, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Articles 3, 4, 5 and 10 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment (OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1137/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 (OJ 2008 L 311, p. 1)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               declares that by having failed to adopt the provisions necessary to ensure that:

                           —

                           the agglomerations of Melegnano, Mortara, Olona Nord, Olona Sud, Robecco sul Naviglio, San Giuliano Milanese Est, Trezzano sul Naviglio and Vigevano (Lombardy), which have a population equivalent of more than 10 000 and discharge urban waste water into receiving waters which are considered ‘sensitive areas’ within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1137/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008, are provided with collecting systems for urban waste water, in accordance with Article 3 of that directive;

                           —

                           in the agglomerations of Pescasseroli (Abruzzo), Cormons, Gradisca d’Isonzo, Grado (Friuli-Venezia Giulia), Broni, Calco, Casteggio, Melegnano, Mortara, Orzinuovi, Rozzano, Trezzano sul Naviglio, Valle San Martino, Vigevano (Lombardy), Pesaro, Urbino (Marche), Alta Val Susa (Piedmont), Nuoro (Sardinia), Castellammare del Golfo I, Cinisi, Terrasini (Sicily), Courmayeur (Aosta Valley) and Thiene (Veneto), which have a population equivalent of more than 10 000, urban waste water entering collecting systems is, before discharge, subject to secondary treatment or an equivalent treatment, in accordance with Article 4 of Directive 91/271, as amended by Regulation No 1137/2008;

                           —

                           in the agglomerations of Pescasseroli (Abruzzo), Aviano Capoluogo, Cividale del Friuli, Codroipo/Sedegliano/Flaibano, Cormons, Gradisca d’Isonzo, Grado, Latisana Capoluogo, Pordenone/Porcia/Roveredo/Cordenons, Sacile, Udine (Friuli-Venezia Giulia), Frosinone (Lazio), Francavilla Fontana, Trinitapoli (Puglia), Dorgali, Nuoro, ZIR Villacidro (Sardinia), Castellammare del Golfo I, Cinisi, Partinico, Terrasini and Trappeto (Sicily), which have a population equivalent of more than 10 000 and discharge into receiving waters which are considered ‘sensitive areas’ within the meaning of Directive 91/271, as amended by Regulation No 1137/2008, urban waste water entering collecting systems is, before discharge, subject to more stringent treatment than secondary treatment or an equivalent treatment, in accordance with Article 5 of that directive, and

                           —

                           the urban waste water treatment plants built to comply with the requirements of Articles 4 to 7 of Directive 91/271, as amended by Regulation No 1137/2008, are designed, constructed, operated and maintained to ensure sufficient performance under all normal local climatic conditions and to ensure that the urban waste water treatment plants are designed in such a way as to take account of seasonal variations of the load in the agglomerations of Pescasseroli (Abruzzo), Aviano Capoluogo, Cividale del Friuli, Codroipo/Sedegliano/Flaibano, Cormons, Gradisca d’Isonzo, Grado, Latisana Capoluogo, Pordenone/Porcia/Roveredo/Cordenons, Sacile, Udine (Friuli-Venezia Giulia), Frosinone (Lazio), Broni, Calco, Casteggio, Melegnano, Mortara, Orzinuovi, Rozzano, Trezzano sul Naviglio, Valle San Martino, Vigevano (Lombardy), Pesaro, Urbino (Marche), Alta Val Susa (Piedmont), Francavilla Fontana, Trinitapoli (Puglia), Dorgali, Nuoro, ZIR Villacidro (Sardinia), Castellammare del Golfo I, Cinisi, Partinico, Terrasini, Trappeto (Sicily), Courmayeur (Aosta Valley) and Thiene (Veneto),
                           the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 and/or Article 4 and/or Article 5 as well as Article 10 of Directive 91/271, as amended by Regulation No 1137/2008;

               2.

               orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 147, 25.5.2013.


title: Case C-114/10: Order of the President of the Court of 16 November 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel — Belgium) — Belpolis Benelux SA v Belgian State

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/31

         Order of the President of the Court of 16 November 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel — Belgium) — Belpolis Benelux SA v Belgian State
   (Case C-114/10) (1)

   ()
   2011/C 30/53
   Language of the case: Dutch
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 134, 22.05.2010.


title: Case C-70/11: Action brought on 16 February 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Sweden

text:
               16.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 120/6

         Action brought on 16 February 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Sweden
   (Case C-70/11)
   2011/C 120/10
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Enegren and M. Owsiany-Hornung, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Sweden

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by providing that a trader, if a consumer exercises his right of withdrawal, can require not only that the consumer pay for that part of the financial service which has already been supplied but can also require payment of reasonable costs for services relating to the time before the trader accepted the consumer’s confirmation that he had withdrawn from the contract, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) of 23 September 2002 concerning the distance marketing of consumer financial services and amending Council Directive 90/619/EEC and Directives 97/7/EC and 98/27/EC, and

               —

               order the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In accordance with recital 13 in the preamble to the directive, Member States should not be able to adopt provisions other than those laid down in this Directive in the fields it harmonises, unless otherwise specifically indicated in it.
   It is apparent from Article 6(1) of the directive that the Member States are to ensure that the consumer has a period of 14 calendar days to withdraw from the contract without penalty and without giving any reason.
   Under Article 7(1) of the directive, when the consumer exercises his right of withdrawal he may only be required to pay for the service actually provided by the supplier in accordance with the distance contract.
   It follows from the second sentence of Chapter 3, Paragraph 11, of the Law on distance and doorstep selling (2005:59) (distans- och hemförsäljningslagen) that traders, in addition to payment for the service actually provided, can also require payment for reasonable costs.
   In the legislation which implements the directive, Sweden has thus introduced provisions which go beyond what is laid down in Article 7(1) of the directive as regards the consumer’s right of withdrawal.
   In all the circumstances, Sweden does not appear to have transposed Article 7(1) of the directive with the clarity and precision laid down by the Court in order that the requirement for legal certainty be met.

      (1)  OJ L 271, p. 16.