title: Case C-22/15: Action brought on 19 January 2015 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands

text:
               13.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/2

         Action brought on 19 January 2015 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands
   (Case C-22/15)
   (2015/C 228/02)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Lozano Palacios and G. Wils acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands

      Form of order sought

   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               —

               find that by granting the value-added-tax exemption for the hiring of quays and moorings to the members of water sports associations not employing one or more persons for the provision of their services, in respect of sailing or leisure activities which cannot be equated with the practice of sport or physical education, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2(1), 24(1) and 133 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (‘the VAT Directive’) (1), in conjunction with Article 132(1)(m) thereof;

               —

               find that in limiting the VAT exemption for hiring to water sports associations not employing one or more persons, when the quays and moorings are hired to members taking part in a sport and the hiring is closely linked to and essential for the practice of that sport, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2(1), 24(1) and 133 of Directive 2006/112/EC in conjunction with Article 132(1)(m) thereof;

               —

               order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               Directive 2006/112/EC requires the Member States to exempt the supply of certain services closely linked to sport or physical education by non-profit-making organisations to persons taking part in sport or physical education.

               2.

               Article 11(1)(e) of the 1968 Netherlands Law on Turnover Tax exempts from VAT the provision of services by sports associations to their members, with the exception of the services provided by water sports associations which, in order to provide their services, have recourse to one or more persons employed by them, in so far as those services consist in the carrying out, with the help of those persons, of activities in relation to vessels or in the provision of quays and moorings.

               3.

               The Commission contends that the Netherlands exemption is both too broad and too narrow.

               4.

               First of all, the Commission takes issue with the fact that the VAT exemption is not limited to the hiring of quays and moorings to members of non-profit-making organisations taking part in sport, but also extends to the hiring of quays and moorings to the members of associations which, whether on a purely recreational or perhaps even residential basis, use the vessel located in the hired quay or mooring, without leaving the location. The exemption is to that extent contrary to Articles 2(1), 24(1) and 133 of the VAT Directive.

               5.

               In addition, the Commission takes issue with the fact that, in order to benefit from the exemption, the associations in question must not have any employees. The Netherlands thereby adds a condition that goes beyond what is permitted by Article 133 of the VAT Directive (in conjunction with Article 132(1)(m) thereof).

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: Case T-284/16: Action brought on 23 May 2016 — Gulli v EUIPO — Laverana (Lybera)

text:
               25.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/61

         Action brought on 23 May 2016 — Gulli v EUIPO — Laverana (Lybera)
   (Case T-284/16)
   (2016/C 270/67)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Diego Gulli (Genoa, Italy) (represented by: M. Andreolini and F. Andreolini, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Laverana GmbH & Co.KG (Wennigsen, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘Lybera’ — Application for registration No 12 155 743

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fith Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 March 2016 in Case R 3219/2014-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order the defendants to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case T-538/14: Action brought on 16 July 2014  — Peri v OHIM (Multiprop)

text:
               22.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 329/22

         Action brought on 16 July 2014 — Peri v OHIM (Multiprop)
   (Case T-538/14)
   2014/C 329/31
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Peri GmbH (Weißenhorn, Germany) (represented by M. Eck and A. Bognár, lawyers)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 April 2014 in Case R 1661/2013-1;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘Multiprop’ for goods and services in Classes 6, 19 and 37 — Community trade mark application No 1 1 5 87  219

      Decision of the Examiner: the application was rejected

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

      Pleas in law:

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 14 May 1998 in Case C-364/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bezirksgericht für Handelssachen Wien): Verein für Konsumenteninformation v Österreichische Kreditversicherungs AG (Directive 90/314/EEC on package travel, package holidays and package tours - Extent of protection against the risk of the organiser's insolvency)

text:
25.7.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 234/7
established at Groothusen-Krummhörn (Germany),                       President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen, G. F. Mancini and
represented by Professor Detlef Schumacher, Bremen, and              G. Hirsch (Rapporteur) Judges, M. B. Elmer, Advocate
Benno Grunewald, Rechtsanwalt, Bremen Ð appeal                       General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a
against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First           judgment on 14 May 1998, in which it:
Chamber) of 13 December 1995 in Case T-109/94
Windpark Groothusen v Commission [1995] ECR II-3007,                 1. Sets aside points 1, 2 and 4 of the operative part of
seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other party to               the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
the proceedings being Commission of the European                          European Communities of 26 June 1996 in Case T-91/
Communities, represented by Jürgen Grunwald Ð the                         95 De Nil and Impens v Council;
Court (Third Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann,
President of Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida,
(Rapporteur) and J.-P. Puissochet, Judges; G. Cosmas,                2. Dismisses the applicants' claim for compensation for
Advocate General; H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator,                    non-material damage;
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 May 1998,
in which it:                                                         3. Refers the case back to the Court of First Instance for
                                                                          judgment on the applicants' claim for compensation
                                                                          for material damage;
1. Dismisses the appeal;
                                                                     4. Reserves the costs.
2. Orders the appellant to pay the costs.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 269 of 14.9.1996.
( ) OJ C 108 of 13.4.1996.
 1
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                         (Fifth Chamber)
                       (Sixth Chamber)                                                      of 14 May 1998
                       of 14 May 1998                                in Case C-364/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                     the Bezirksgericht für Handelssachen Wien): Verein für
in Case C-259/96 P: Council of the European Union v                  Konsumenteninformation v Österreichische Kreditversiche-
           Lieve de Nil and Christiane Impens (1)                                              rungs AG (1)
(Appeal Ð Officials Ð Internal competition Ð Measures                (Directive 90/314/EEC on package travel, package
implementing a judgment annulling a decision Ð                       holidays and package tours Ð Extent of protection against
Promotion to a higher category following a competition                           the risk of the organiser's insolvency)
with no retroactive effect Ð Material and non-material
                                                                                (98/C 234/13)
                           damage)
                        (98/C 234/12)                                               (Language of the case: German)
               (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       In Case C-364/97: reference to the Court under Article 177
         published in the European Court Reports)                    of the EC Treaty from the Bezirksgericht für
                                                                     Handelssachen Wien for a preliminary ruling in the
In Case C-259/96 P: appeal by the Council of the                     proceedings pending before that court between Verein für
European Union (Agents: Jean-Paul JacqueÂ, Diego Canga               Konsumenteninformation und Österreichische Kreditversi-
Fano and TheÂreÁse Blanchet) against the judgment of the             cherungs AG Ð on the interpretation of Council Directive
Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 26 June 1996             90/314/EEC of 13 June 1990 on package travel, package
in Case T-91/95 De Nil and Impens v Council [1996]                   holidays and package tours (OJ L 158 of 23.6.1990,
ECR-SC II-959, seeking to have that judgment set aside,              p. 59), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C.
the other parties to the proceedings being Lieve de Nil, an          Gulmann, (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, M.
official of the European Union, residing in Wolvertem                Wathelet, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, J.-P. Puissochet and
(Belgium) and Christiane Impens, an official of the                  L. Sevón, Judges; G. Tesauro, Advocate General;
Council of the European Union, residing in Brussels,                 L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has
represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis, Thierry Demaseure,                  given a judgment on 14 May 1998, in which it has ruled:
VeÂronique Leclercq and Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices             Article 7 of Council Directive 90/314/EEC of 13 June
of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange, the                    1990 on package travel, package holidays and package
Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: H. Ragnemalm,                    tours is to be interpreted as covering, as security for the
 ---pagebreak--- C 234/8               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      25.7.98
refund of money paid over, a situation in which the                       markets. In that regard, the capacity in which the
purchaser of a package holiday who has paid the travel                    Member State grants aid under Council Regulation
organiser for the costs of his accommodation before                       (EEC) No 1765/92 of 30 June 1992 establishing a
travelling on his holiday is compelled, following the travel              support system for producers of certain arable crops,
organiser's insolvency, to pay the hotelier for his                       the fact that the rules of that Member State on set-off
accommodation again in order to be able to leave the                      require, for set-off to be available, reciprocity of debts
hotel and return home.                                                    as between debtor and creditor, the practice generally
                                                                          followed by the Member State regarding set-off and
(1) OJ C 9 of 11.1.1997.                                                  the legal basis of the debt to the State involved in the
                                                                          set-off are of no importance, provided that the
                                                                          national authorities ensure that the effectiveness of
                                                                          Community law is not in any way undermined and
                                                                          that economic operators enjoy equal treatment. It is
                                                                          for the national court to determine whether that is the
                                                                          case.
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       of 19 May 1998                                2. On a proper construction of Article 15(3) of
                                                                          Regulation No 1765/92, Member States are not
in Case C-132/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                 precluded from requiring a national intervention
the éstre Landsret): Bent Jensen and Korn- og                             agency to effect set-off with debts payable to the State
Foderstofkompagniet A/S v Landbrugsministeriet, EF-                       in the case of a beneficiary of compensatory payments.
                        Direktoratet (1)
(Community law Ð Principles Ð Set-off of amounts paid                3. On a proper construction of Article 10(1) of
under Community law against debts payable to a Member                     Regulation No 1765/92, payment of the compensatory
State Ð Common agricultural policy Ð Regulation (EEC)                     payments to which it refers may be deferred until it
No 1765/92 Ð Support system for producers of certain                      has been verified whether the State has any claim
                          arable crops)                                   against the beneficiary thereof for which set-off may
                         (98/C 234/14)                                    be available, provided that the payment is made no
                                                                          later than 31 December in the year in question.
                (Language of the case: Danish)                       (1) OJ C 189 of 22.7.1995.
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-132/95: reference to the Court under Article 177                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
of the EC Treaty from the éstre Landsret (Eastern                                            of 19 May 1998
Regional Court) (Denmark), for a preliminary ruling in
the proceedings pending before that court between Bent               in Case C-3/96: Commission of the European
Jensen and Korn- og Foderstofkompagniet A/S and                      Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands, supported by
Landbrugsministeriet, EF-Direktoratet           Ð on the                          the Federal Republic of Germany (1)
interpretation of Community law with regard to set-off                  (Conservation of wild birds Ð Special protection areas)
between amounts paid under Community law and debts
payable to a Member State and of Articles 10(1) and                                           (98/C 234/15)
15(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1765/92 of 30 June
1992 establishing a support system for producers of                                  (Language of the case: Dutch)
certain arable crops (OJ L 181 of 1.7.1992, p. 12) Ð the
Court, composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President,
C. Gulmann, M. Wathelet (Presidents of Chambers),                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
G. F. Mancini (Rapporteur), J. C. Moitinho de Almeida,                         published in the European Court Reports)
J. L. Murray, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and L. Sevón,
Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate General; H. von Holstein,
Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment            In Case C-3/96: Commission of the European
on 19 May 1998, in which it has ruled:                               Communities, represented by W. Wils, v Kingdom of the
                                                                     Netherlands, represented by M. A. Fierstra and J. S. van
                                                                     den Oosterkamp, supported by the Federal Republic of
1. Community law does not preclude a Member State                    Germany, represented by E. Röder and S. Maaû Ð
     from effecting set-off between an amount due to a               application for a declaration that, by failing sufficiently to
     beneficiary of aid payable under Community                      designate special protection areas within the meaning of
     legislation and an outstanding debt to that Member              Article 4(1) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April
     State. The position would be different only if that             1979 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ L 103 of
     practice were to interfere with the proper functioning          25.4.1979, p. 1), the Kingdom of the Netherlands has
     of the common organisation of the agricultural                  failed to comply with its obligations under that directive


title: Case C-36/09 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 November 2010 — Transportes Evaristo Molina, SA v European Commission (Appeal — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Service station market in Spain — Long-term exclusive fuel supply agreements — Commission decision — Right of purchase granted to certain service stations — Conditions of supply by Repsol — List of the service stations concerned — Action for annulment — Time-limits for commencing proceedings — Starting point)

text:
               15.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/4

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 November 2010 — Transportes Evaristo Molina, SA v European Commission
   (Case C-36/09 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Service station market in Spain - Long-term exclusive fuel supply agreements - Commission decision - Right of purchase granted to certain service stations - Conditions of supply by Repsol - List of the service stations concerned - Action for annulment - Time-limits for commencing proceedings - Starting point)
   2011/C 13/06
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Transportes Evaristo Molina, SA (represented by: A. Hernández Pardo, S. Beltrán Ruiz and M.L. Ruiz Ezquerra, abogados)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: E. Gippini Fournier, acting as Agent)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Repsol Comercial de Productos Petrolíferos SA (represented by: F. Lorente Hurtado and P. Vidal Martínez, abogados)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 14 November 2008 in Case T-45/08 Transportes Evaristo Molina v Commission dismissing the action for annulment of Commission Decision 2006/446/EC of 12 April 2006 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 EC (Case COMP/B-1/38.348 — Repsol CPP) (summary published in OJ 2006 L 176, p. 104) making binding the undertakings given by Repsol CPP, adopted in accordance with Article 9 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 [EC] and 82 [EC] (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Transportes Evaristo Molina, SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 4.4.2009.


C 20/28               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                 22.1.2000
       Removal from the register of Case T-11/96 (1)                           Removal from the register of Case T-306/97 (1)
                        (2000/C 20/58)                                                          (2000/C 20/61)
                  (Language of the case: English)                                         (Language of the case: English)
By order of 10 November 1999, the President of the Fourth               By order of 10 November 1999, the President of the Fourth
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                  Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of                Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Case T-11/96: Donald George Gage and David John Gage v                  Case T-306/97: M.C. Lewis, M.A. Lewis and D.C. Lewis v
Council of the European Union and Commission of the                     Council of the European Union and Commission of the
European Communities.                                                   European Communities.
(1) OJ C 133 of 4.5.1996.                                               (1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998.
       Removal from the register of Case T-304/97 (1)                          Removal from the register of Case T-90/98 (1)
                        (2000/C 20/59)                                                          (2000/C 20/62)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                        By order of 25 October 1999, the President of the First
By order of 10 November 1999, the President of the Fourth               Chamber, of the Court of First Instance of the European
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                        Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
                                                                        Case T-90/98: Assidomän Kraft Products AB, AB Iggesund
Case T-304/97: W.J.C. Hilsdon v Council of the European                 Bruk, Korsnäs AB, Modo Paper AB, Södra Cell AB, Stora
Union and Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                        Kopparbergs Bergslags AB, Svenska Cellulosa AB (SCA) v
                                                                        Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998.
                                                                        (1) OJ C 234 of 25.7.1998.
       Removal from the register of Case T-305/97 (1)
                                                                               Removal from the register of Case T-135/98 (1)
                        (2000/C 20/60)
                                                                                (2000/C 20/63)
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
By order of 10 November 1999, the President of the Fourth
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                  By order of 22 October 1999, the Court of First Instance of
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of                the European Communities (single judge) has ordered the
Case T-305/97: Jimmy Hull v Council of the European Union               removal from the register of Case T-135/98: Elaine Spence v
and Commission of the European Communities.                             Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998.                                               (1) OJ C 327 of 24.10.1998.


title: Judgment of the Court of 15 June 1999 in Case C-140/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Linz): Walter Rechberger and Renate Greindl, Hermann Hofmeister and Others v Republic of Austria (Directive 90/314/EEC on package travel, package holidays and package tours - Travel offered at a reduced price to the subscribers of a daily newspaper - Transposition of the directive - Liability of the Member State)

text:
C 226/4                   EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                              7.8.1999
(President of the First Chamber, acting for the President of                Euratom) No 2799/85 of 27 September 1985 (OJ 1982 L 265,
the Fifth Chamber) J.C. Moitinho de Almeida (Rapporteur),                   p. 1), in particular Article 27 of Annex VIII thereto — the
C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward and M. Wathelet Judges, N. Fen-                   Court (First Chamber) composed of: P. Jann President of the
nelly, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the                 Chamber, L. Sevón (Rapporteur) and M. Wathelet, Judges;
Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 June 1999 in which it                 D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Princi-
has ruled:                                                                  pal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                            10 June 1999, in which it has ruled:
1. Article 8(1) of Council Directive 92/81/EEC of 19 October
     1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on        1. Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 of the Council
     mineral oils precludes the collection of a tax of the kind at issue        of 29 February 1968 laying down the Staff Regulations of
     in this case, which is levied on domestic commercial aviation and          Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants
     is calculated by reference to data on fuel consumption and                 of the European Communities and instituting special measures
     emissions of hydrocarbons and nitric oxide during an average               temporarily applicable to officials of the Commission, as amended
     flight by the type of aircraft used.                                       by Council Regulation (ECSC, EEC, Euratom) No 2799/85 of
                                                                                27 September 1985, in particular Article 27 of Annex VIII
2. The obligation imposed by Article 8(1)(b) of Directive 92/81 to              thereto, does not preclude the application, in proceedings between
     exempt from the harmonised excise duty mineral oils supplied for           two former spouses, of national rules of law of the kind contained
     use as fuel for the purpose of air navigation other than private           in Paragraph 1587 et seq. of the Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch,
     pleasure flying may be relied on by individuals in proceedings             providing for the apportionment of pension rights between
     before national courts in order to contest national rules that are         divorced spouses.
     incompatible with that obligation.
                                                                            2. Article 6 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 12
                                                                                EC) does not preclude the laws of a Member State regulating the
(1) OJ C 357 of 22.11.1997.                                                     consequences of divorce between an official of the Communities
                                                                                and his former spouse, regard being had to the spouses’
                                                                                nationality as a connecting factor, from causing the official
                                                                                concerned to bear a heavier burden than would be borne by an
                                                                                official of a different nationality in the same situation.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 55 of 20.2.1998.
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            (First Chamber)
                            of 10 June 1999
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
in Case C-430/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Amtsgericht Köln): Jutta Johannes v Hartmut                                                    of 15 June 1999
                              Johannes (1)
                                                                            in Case C-140/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
(Officials — Pension rights — Apportionment of pension                      the Landesgericht Linz): Walter Rechberger and Renate
                    rights in divorce proceedings)                          Greindl, Hermann Hofmeister and Others v Republic of
                                                                                Austria (1)
                            (1999/C 226/06)                                 (Directive 90/314/EEC on package travel, package holidays
                                                                            and package tours — Travel offered at a reduced price to the
                                                                            subscribers of a daily newspaper — Transposition of the
                     (Language of the case: German)                                    directive — Liability of the Member State)
                                                                                (1999/C 226/07)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
In Case C-430/97: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC (ex Article 177) by the Amtsgericht Köln (Germany) for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
court between Jutta Johannes and Hartmut Johannes on the                                         in the European Court Reports)
interpretation of Article 6 of the EC Treaty (now, after
amendment, Article 12 EC) and of Regulation (EEC, Euratom,                  In Case C-140/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
ECSC) No 259/68 of the Council of 29 February 1968 laying                   the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Landesgericht
down the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of               Linz (Regional Court, Linz) for a preliminary ruling in the
Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities                    proceedings pending before that court between Walter
and instituting special measures temporarily applicable to                  Rechberger and Renate Greindl, Hermann Hofmeister and
officials of the Commission (OJ, English Special Edition 1968               Others and the Republic of Austria — on the interpretation of
(I), p. 30), as amended by Council Regulation (ECSC, EEC,                   Article 7 of Council Directive 90/314/EEC of 13 June 1990
 ---pagebreak--- 7.8.1999                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 226/5
on package travel, package holidays and package tours (OJ                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
1990 L 158, p. 59) and on the conditions under which a
Member State incurs liability for loss or damage caused to
individuals through a breach of Community law — the Court,                                             of 15 June 1999
composed of: G.C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, P.J.G. Kap-
teyn, G. Hirsch and P. Jann, Presidents of Chambers, G.F. Man-
cini, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur),
L. Sevón and M. Wathelet, Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate Gen-                  in Case C-321/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
eral; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has             the Stockholms Tingsrätten): Ulla-Brith Andersson and
given a judgment on 15 June 1999, in which it has ruled:                     Susanne Wåkerås-Andersson v Svenska Staten (Swedish
                                                                                State) (1)
1. Article 7 of Council Directive 90/314/EEC of 13 June 1990
                                                                             (Article 234 EC (ex-Article 177) — EEA Agreement —
    on package travel, package holidays and package tours applies to
                                                                             Jurisdiction of the Court of Justice — Accession to the
    trips which are offered by a daily newspaper as a gift exclusive to
                                                                             European Union — Directive 80/987/EEC — Liability of a
    its subscribers as part of an advertising initiative that contravenes
                                                                                State)
    national competition laws and for which the principal contractor,
    if he travels alone, pays airport taxes and a single room
    supplement or, if he is accompanied by one or more persons
    paying the full rate, airport taxes only.                                                          (1999/C 226/08)
2. A Member State which acceded to the European Union on
    1 January 1995 has not properly transposed Article 7 of the                                 (Language of the case: Swedish)
    directive into national law if it has adopted legislation which
    protects travellers who have booked package travel after 1 January
    1995 but limits that protection to trips with a departure date of
    1 May 1995 or later.                                                     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
3. Transposition of Article 7 of Directive 90/314 in a way that
    limits the protection prescribed by that provision to trips with a       In Case C-321/97: reference to the Court under Article 234
    departure date four months or more after the expiry of the               EC (ex Article 177) by the Stockholms Tingsrätten, Sweden,
    period prescribed for transposition of the directive constitutes a       for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
    sufficiently serious breach of Community law, even where the             court between Ulla-Brith Andersson and Susanne Wåkerås-
    Member State has implemented all the other provisions of the             Andersson and Svenska Staten (Swedish State) — on the
    directive.                                                               interpretation of Article 6 of the Agreement on the European
                                                                             Economic Area signed on 2 May 1992 and approved by
                                                                             Decision 94/1/EC, ECSC of the Council and the Commission
4. Article 7 of Directive 90/314 has not been properly transposed            of 13 December 1993 on the conclusion of the Agreement
    where national legislation does no more than require, for the            on the European Economic Area between the European
    coverage of the risk, a contract of insurance or a bank guarantee        Communities, their Member States and the Republic of Austria,
    under which the amount of cover provided must be no less than            the Republic of Finland, the Republic of Iceland, the Principality
    5 % of the organiser’s business turnover in the corresponding            of Liechtenstein, the Kingdom of Norway and the Kingdom of
    quarter of the previous calendar year and which requires an              Sweden (OJ 1994 L 1, p. 1), and Council Directive 80/987/EEC
    organiser just starting up in business to base the amount of cover       of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the
    on his estimated turnover from his anticipated business as a             Member States relating to the protection of employees in the
    travel organiser, without taking account of any increase in the          event of the insolvency of their employer (OJ 1980 L 283,
    organiser’s business turnover in the current year.                       p. 23) — the Court, composed of G.C. Rodriguez Iglesias,
                                                                             President, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and P. Jann, Presidents of
                                                                             Chambers, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann, J.L. Murray,
5. Once a direct causal link has been established, the Member                D.A.O. Edward, H. Ragnemalm, L. Sevór (Rapporteur) and
    State’s liability for breach of Article 7 of the directive cannot be     M. Wathelet, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General; H. von
    precluded by imprudent conduct on the part of the travel organiser       Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 June
                                                                             1999, in which it has ruled:
    or by the occurrence of exceptional or unforeseeable events.
                                                                             1. The Court has no jurisdiction to reply to the first question.
(1) OJ C 181 of 14.6.1996.
                                                                             2. Community law does not enable individuals to rely before the
                                                                                courts or tribunals of a European Free Trade Area State which
                                                                                has acceded to the European Union on rights derived directly
                                                                                from Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on
                                                                                the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to
                                                                                the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their


title: Case C-174/06: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of  25 October 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione — Italy) — Ministero delle Finanze v CO.GE.P. Srl (Sixth Directive — VAT — Exempted transactions — Leasing or letting of immovable property — Property owned by the State)

text:
               22.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/14

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 October 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione — Italy) — Ministero delle Finanze v CO.GE.P. Srl
   (Case C-174/06) (1)

   (Sixth Directive - VAT - Exempted transactions - Leasing or letting of immovable property - Property owned by the State)
   (2007/C 315/23)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Corte Suprema di Cassazione
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ministero delle Finanze

      Defendant: CO.GE.P. Srl
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Corte Suprema di Cassazione — Interpretation of Article 13B(b) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Exemption for the letting of immovable property — Concession in respect of use of property owned by the State
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 13B(b) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment must be interpreted as meaning that a legal relationship such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which a person has been granted the right to occupy and use, including exclusively, public property, namely areas of State maritime property, for a specified period and against payment, is covered by the concept of ‘leasing or letting of immovable property’ within the meaning of that Article.

      (1)  OJ C 154, 1.7.2006.


title: Case C-516/09: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 March 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Tanja Borger v Tiroler Gebietskrankenkasse (Social security for workers — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Scope ratione personae — Interpretation of the term ‘employed person’ — Benefits for a dependent child — Extension of unpaid leave)

text:
               7.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 139/7

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 March 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Tanja Borger v Tiroler Gebietskrankenkasse
   (Case C-516/09) (1)

   (Social security for workers - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Scope ratione personae - Interpretation of the term ‘employed person’ - Benefits for a dependent child - Extension of unpaid leave)
   2011/C 139/11
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberster Gerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Claimant: Tanja Borger

      Defendant: Tiroler Gebietskrankenkasse

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberster Gerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 1(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1971(II), p. 416) — Childcare allowance — Scope ratione personae — Interpretation of the term ‘employed person’ — Person residing in Switzerland and agreeing with her employer, established in a Member State, a suspension of their employment relationship by reason of the birth of her child (‘Karenz’) for a period exceeding the two-year period provided for by the law of that Member State

      Operative part of the judgment

   The status of an ‘employed person’, within the meaning of Article 1(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, in the version amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1606/98 of 29 June 1998, must be attributed to a person in a situation such as that of the claimant in the main proceedings during the six-month period of extended unpaid leave following the birth of her child, on condition that, during that period, that person is covered, even if only in respect of a single risk, on a compulsory or optional basis, by a general or special social security scheme mentioned in Article 1(a) of that regulation. It is for the national court to determine whether that condition is satisfied in the dispute before it.

      (1)  OJ C 63, 13.3.2010.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht, Munich, by order of that court of 16 December 1998 in the case of Feiler v Karlsruher Lebensversicherungs-AG (Case C-10/99)

text:
C 71/20              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  13.3.1999
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'Appel           to run only when the assurance policy, the policy
de Grenoble (Chambre Commerciale), by judgment of that             conditions, and the consumer information required by
court of 13 January 1999 in the case of Echirolles                 Paragraph 10a of the Versicherungsaufsichtsgesetz (Law
Distributions SA v Association du DauphineÂ, Association           on the Supervision of Insurance Companies) are fully
des Libraires de Bandes DessineÂes, Patrick Corbet and             available to the policy-holder, and, upon delivery of the
               Union des Libraires de France                       assurance policy, he was informed in writing, in clear
                                                                   printed form, about the right of withdrawal, the
                        (Case C-9/99)
                                                                   commencement of the period and its duration, and where
                       (1999/C 71/33)                              it is incumbent upon the insurer to prove receipt of the
                                                                   documents, and the posting of the withdrawal in good
                                                                   time is sufficient to constitute observance of the time-limit,
                                                                   but, notwithstanding this, the right of withdrawal expires
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the             one year after payment of the first premium?
European Communities by judgment of the Cour d'Appel
de Grenoble (Chambre Commerciale) (Court of Appeal,
Grenoble Ð Commercial Chamber) of 13 January 1999,
which was received at the Court Registry on 18 January
1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Echirolles
Distributions SA v Association du DauphineÂ, Association
des Libraires de Bandes DessineÂes, Patrick Corbet and
Union des Libraires de France.                                     Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arbeitsgericht
                                                                   Siegen by order of that court of 7 January 1999 in the
                                                                    case of Margrit Dietrich against Westdeutscher Rundfunk
The Cour d'Appel de Grenoble (Chambre Commerciale)                                         (Case C-11/99)
asks the Court of Justice to rule on the question whether
the French legislation requiring publishers to impose on                                   (1999/C 71/35)
booksellers fixed prices for the resale of books, regardless
of their contents, to consumers and to business purchasers
is compatible with the internal market established on
1 January 1993, und in particular with Articles 3(c) and           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
(g), 3a and 5, the second paragraph of Article 7a and              European Communities by order of the Arbeitsgericht Sie-
Articles 102a and 103(3) and (4) of the Treaty establishing        gen (Labour Court, Siegen) of 7 January 1999, received at
the European Economic Community, as amended by the                 the Court Registry on 18 January 1999, for a preliminary
Single European Act and the Treaty on European Union.              ruling in the case of Margrit Dietrich v Westdeutscher
                                                                   Rundfunk on the following questions:
                                                                   1. On a proper interpretation of Article 2(a) of Council
                                                                        Directive 90/270/EEC of 29 May 1990 on the
                                                                        minimum safety and health requirements for work
                                                                        with display screen equipment (1), does graphic
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht,
                                                                        display' within the meaning of that provision also
Munich, by order of that court of 16 December 1998 in
                                                                        include the replay of film clips on monitors?
  the case of Feiler v Karlsruher Lebensversicherungs-AG
                       (Case C-10/99)
                       (1999/C 71/34)                              2. If not, does graphic display' within the meaning of
                                                                        Article 2(a) of Council Directive 90/270/EEC include
                                                                        the replay of video data files on monitors, which
                                                                        include film clips in digitalised form?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Amtsgericht
(Local Court), Munich, of 16 December 1998, which was
                                                                   3. If either Question 1 or Question 2 is answered in the
received at the Court Registry on 18 January 1999, for a
                                                                        affirmative, must Article 1(3)(a) of Council Directive
preliminary ruling in the case of Feiler v Karlsruher
                                                                        90/270/EEC be interpreted as meaning that control
Lebensversicherungs-AG on the following question:
                                                                        cabs for . . . machinery' within the meaning of that
                                                                        provision includes a workstation at which analogue or
                                                                        digitalised picture material is processed with the
May Article 31(1) of the Third Life Assurance Directive                 assistance of technical installations or computer
(Directive 92/96/EEC, OJ L 360, 9.12.1992, p. 1) be                     programmes?
interpreted as meaning that it is sufficient for the
information listed in point A of Annex II not to be
communicated to the policy-holder before the assurance             (1) OJ L 156, 21.6.1990, p. 14.
contract is concluded, but for him merely to be granted a
right of withdrawal, which is to be exercised in writing
within 14 days, in circumstances where that period begins


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by Pretura Circondariale di Bari, by order of that court of 19 August 1997, in the case of Giuseppe Manfredi v. Regione Puglia (Case C-308/97)

text:
18 . 10 . 97                 I EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 318/ 11
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court                          2 . Is it compatible with the applicable Community law,
of Ireland, by order of that court dated 29 May 1997, in                           and in particular with Articles 52 and 58 of the EC
the case of Connemara Machine Turf Company against                                 Treaty, read together, for the tax levied in a non
                                Coillte Teoranta                                   member State on the profits of a subsidiary in that
                                ( Case C-306/97)                                   State of a branch establishment in Germany of a
                                                                                company having its seat in another Member State not
                                  ( 97/C 318/19 )                                  to be credited against the German corporation tax on
                                                                                that German branch establishment under the same
                                                                                conditions as for a company having its seat in
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                             Germany ?
European Communities by an order of the High Court of
Ireland dated 29 May 1997, which was received at the
Court Registry on 2 September 1997, for a preliminary                         3 . Is it compatible with the applicable Community law,
ruling in the case of Connemara Machine Turf Company '                             and in particular with Articles 52 and 58 of the EC
against Coillte Teoranta on the following questions:                               Treaty, read together, for a branch establishment in
                                                                                Germany of a company having its seat in another
                                                                                Member State not to be accorded Schachtelprivileg in
( i ) Is the Defendant a 'contracting authority' within
                                                                                respect of capital tax under the same conditions as for
       the definition of the term 'contracting authorities'                        a company having its seat in Germany ?
       contained in Article 1 ( b) of Council Directive 77/62/
       EEC H ?
( ii ) Is the Defendant a 'contracting authority' within
       the definition of the term 'contracting authorities'
       contained in Article 1 ( b) of Council Directive 93/36/
       EEC ( 2)?                                                              Reference for a preliminary ruling by Pretura
                                                                              Circondariale di Bari, by order of that court of 19 August
(') Council        Directive      77/62/EEC   of   21  December    1976         1997, in the case of Giuseppe Manfredi v. Regione Puglia
      coordinating procedures for the award of public supply                                            ( Case C-308/97)
      contracts ( OJ L 13 , 15 . 1 . 1977, p. 1 ).
( 2 ) Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating                                              97/C 318/21 )
      procedures for the award of public supply contracts ( OJ L 199,
      9 . 8 . 1993 , p. 1 ).
                                                                              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                              European Communities by an order of the Pretura
                                                                              Circondariale di Bari ( Magistrate's Court, District of Bari )
                                                                              of 19 August 1997, which was received at the Court
                                                                              Registry on 3 September 1997, for a preliminary ruling
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht                     in the case of Giuseppe Manfredi v. Regione Puglia
Koln by order of that court of 30 June 1997 in the case of                    concerning the extension of the prohibition of the planting
Compagnie de Saint-Gobain, German branch v. Finanzamt                         of new vines laid down in Article 6 ( 1 ) of Council
                               Aachen-Innenstadt                              Regulation ( EEC) No 822/87 ( ] ) to vines intended for the
                                                                              production of table grapes.
                                  Case C-307/97 )
                                  ( 97/C 318/20 )                             0 ) OJ L 84, 27. 3 . 1987, p . 1 .
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Finanzgericht
Koln (Finance Court, Cologne ) of 30 June 1997, which
was received at the Court Registry on 2 September 1997,
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Compagnie de                          Appeal brought on 4 September 1997 by the Commission
Saint-Gobain, German branch v. Finanzamt Aachen                              of the European Communities against the judgment
Innenstadt on the following questions:                                        delivered on 10 July 1997 by the Second Chamber
                                                                              ( extended composition) of the Court of First Instance of
1 . Is it compatible with the applicable Community law,                       the European Communities in Case T-227/95 between
       and in particular with Articles 52 and 58 of the EC                    AssiDoman Kraft Products AB and Others and the
       Treaty, read together, for a branch establishment in                            Commission of the European Communities
       Germany of a company having its seat in another                                                ( Case C-3 10/97 P)
       Member State not to be accorded Schachtelprivileg (a
       form of tax relief in respect of profits distributed                                               ( 97/C 318/22 )
       between parent company and subsidiary) in respect of
       dividends under a double taxation agreement with a
       non-member State under the same conditions as for a                    An appeal against the judgment delivered on 10 July 1997
       company having its seat in Germany ?                                   by the Second Chamber (extended composition) of the


title: Case T-292/01: Action brought on 28 November 2001 by Phillips-Van Heusen Corporation against Office for the Harmonization of the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)

text:
C 44/20               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       16.2.2002
Versorgungs- und Verkehrsgesellschaft mbH — DVV —                       pursuant to Articles 10(1), 13(1) and 4(4) of Council Regu-
Stadtwerke, of Dessau (Germany), Neubrandenburger                       lation (EC) No 659/1999 (1). Had it done so, the Commission
Stadtwerke GmbH, of Neubrandenburg (Germany), Stadtwerke                would then have been constrained, under the law applicable
Schwäbisch Hall GmbH, of Schwäbisch Hall (Germany),                     to grants of aid, to adopt a negative decision against the Federal
Stadtwerke Tübingen GmbH, of Tübingen (Germany) and                     Republic of Germany on the facts as stated.
Stadtwerke Uelzen GmbH, of Uelzen (Germany), represented
by D. Fouquet, lawyer.
                                                                        (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying
                                                                            down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC
                                                                            Treaty (now Article 88 EC) (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).
The applicants claim that the Court should:
—     declare that, by failing, within two months after being
      formally called upon by letter of 29 August 2001 to act
      pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 232 EC, to
      examine the complaint made on the basis of Articles 87
      and 88 EC and to reach a decision in the light of that
      examination, the Commission has infringed Article 232
      EC;                                                               Action brought on 28 November 2001 by Phillips-Van
                                                                        Heusen Corporation against Office for the Harmonization
                                                                         of the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)
—     order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings,
      including the costs incurred by the applicants, even in the
      event that, following the bringing of the action, the                                      (Case T-292/01)
      Commission takes action in such a way that, in the
      opinion of the Court, the proceedings have become                                           (2002/C 44/38)
      nugatory.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        An action against Office for Harmonization in the Internal
                                                                        Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) was brought before
The applicants are German public utilities producing their own          the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
electricity. Since the introduction of competition in the               28 November 2001 by Phillips-Van Heusen Corporation of
electricity market, the applicants, as energy suppliers, have           New York (United States of America), represented by Fabrizio
been in competition with, in particular, the 19 existing nuclear        Jacobacci. The other party in proceedings before the Com-
power stations as regards the production of electricity in the          mission was: Pash Textilvertrieb und Einzelhandel GmbH of
Federal Republic of Germany.                                            Munich (Germany)
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
According to the applicants, the nuclear power station oper-
ators set aside reserves in their commercial and tax balance
sheets in respect of the cost of having to close down at some           —     annul Decision R 0740/2000-3 of the Third Board of
future date and the disposal of irradiated fuel elements and                  Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
radioactive waste. The disposal and shutting-down costs are                   Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 September 2001
allocated to the sales proceeds from continuous electricity                   notified on 28 September 2001 to the applicant;
production. However, according to the applicants, the obli-
gation under commercial law to set aside reserves affects, at           —     definitively reject the opposition brought by the defend-
the same time, the way in which the nuclear power station                     ant against registration of Community trade mark
operators are treated for tax purposes. As a result of the                    No 161331 BASS, on behalf of Phillips-Van Heusen
German tax rules, a significant part of the tax additionally                  Corporation, in respect of the whole of Class 25;
demanded is in fact made freely available to the nuclear power
station operators by virtue of the legislation on tax relief.           —     order the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market
                                                                              (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) to register Community
                                                                              trade mark No 161331 BASS;
The applicants assert that the exemption of reserves under
fiscal law in favour of nuclear power stations constitutes a            —     order the defendant and the OHIM to pay, jointly or
grant by the Federal Republic of Germany of unlawful, non-                    severally, to the applicant the costs, expenses and fees
notified aid which is incompatible with the common market.                    incurred in both the present proceedings and the oppo-
They maintain that the Commission was obliged to open a                       sition and appeal proceedings before the Office for
formal procedure against the Federal Republic of Germany                      Harmonization in the Internal Market.
 ---pagebreak--- 16.2.2002             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 44/21
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
Applicant for the Com-       The applicant                              —      annul the decision of 29 January 2001 of the Head of
munity trade mark:                                                             Unit ADMIN B 3 fixing her place of recruitment at
                                                                               Brussels and refusing to grant her the daily subsistence
The Community trade          Word mark ‘BASS’ — application                    allowance;
mark concerned:              No 161331, registration sought
                             in respect of goods in Class 25            —      annul the implied rejection of the applicant’s complaint
                             (footwear and clothing)                           of 27 April 2001 against the original contested decision;
Proprietor of the right to   Pash Textilvertrieb und Einzelhan-         —      order the Commission to pay to the applicant the
the trade mark or sign       del GmbH                                          amounts to which she is entitled as a result of having
asserted by way of oppo-                                                       Rome as her place of recruitment, as set out in the
sition in the opposition                                                       grounds, and in particular the daily subsistence allowance,
proceedings:                                                                   with default interest at 7 % per annum, as from the date
                                                                               on which those amounts fell due until payment is made
Trade mark or sign           German mark registered under                      in full;
asserted by way of oppo-     the name ‘PASH’, registered in
sition in the opposition     order to distinguish various               —      order the Commission to pay the costs.
proceedings:                 articles in international classes 18
                             and 25
Decision of the Oppo-        Opposition dismissed                       Pleas in law and main arguments
sition Division:
Decision of the Board of     Annulment of the decision of the           The applicant was seconded to the Commission in Brussels for
Appeal:                      Opposition Division                        three years before being engaged as a member of the auxiliary
                                                                        staff. For that purpose, the applicant’s place of recruitment was
Grounds of claim:            —     Inconsistency between the            set as Rome. The applicant was subsequently engaged as a
                                   form of order sought and             member of the temporary staff for an indeterminate period,
                                   the order made, since the            with Brussels as the place of recruitment. That decision is
                                   opposition was not brought           contested by the applicant.
                                   against the ‘shoes’ men-
                                   tioned in Class 25                   In support of her application, the applicant pleads an error in
                                                                        law as regards the concept of ‘residence’ and a manifest error
                             —     Coexistence of the marks
                                                                        of assessment. According to the applicant, her residence in
                                   ‘BASS’ and ‘PASH’ on the
                                                                        Brussels was provisional during the entire period of her
                                   German market
                                                                        engagement with the Commission in Brussels. In her sub-
                             —     Misapplication       of    Ar-       mission, the facts demonstrate that her habitual residence
                                   ticle 8(1)(b) of Regulation          remained Rome. Moreover, the applicant claims that the
                                   (EC) No 40/94 (likelihood of         Commission illegally withdrew a decision giving rise to
                                   confusion).                          entitlement. Initially, the place of recruitment of the applicant
                                                                        was Rome when she took up her duties as a member of
                                                                        the temporary staff. That decision was withdrawn by the
                                                                        subsequent contested decision not to grant the applicant
                                                                        entitlement to the daily subsistence allowance.
Action brought on 3 December 2001 by Donatella Ineich-
   en against Commission of the European Communities
                        (Case T-293/01)                                 Action brought on 3 December 2001 by Lucı́a Aparicio
                                                                        Chofré against Commission of the European Communities
                         (2002/C 44/39)
                                                                                (Case T-294/01)
                  (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (2002/C 44/40)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 3 December 2001 by Donatella
Ineichen, residing in Brussels, represented by Marc-Albert              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Lucas, lawyer.                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the


title: Case C-416/06: Order of the President of the First Chamber of the Court of 10 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/37

         Order of the President of the First Chamber of the Court of 10 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-416/06) (1)

   (2008/C 209/59)

      Language of the case: Polish

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

      (1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.


title: Case T-384/06 R: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 28 March 2007 — IBP and International Building Products France v Commission (Interim measures — Application for suspension of operation — Competition — Payment of a fine — Bank guarantee — Lack of urgency)

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/37

         Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 28 March 2007 — IBP and International Building Products France v Commission
   (Case T-384/06 R)
   (Interim measures - Application for suspension of operation - Competition - Payment of a fine - Bank guarantee - Lack of urgency)
   (2007/C 96/76)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicants: IBP Ltd (Tipton, West Midlands, United Kingdom) and International Building Products France SA (Sartrouville, France) (represented by: M. Clough and A. Aldred, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Castillo de la Torre and V. Bottka, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Application for suspension of the operation of Article 2(c) and (d) of the Commission Decision of 20 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F-1/38.121 — Fittings) and, in particular, for dispensation from the obligation to provide a bank guarantee imposed by the Commission's letter of 4 October 2006 notifying the applicants of the decision
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case T-569/14: Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — Laverana v OHIM (BIO COMPLEXE DE PLANTES ENRICHI EN PROTÉINES PROPRE FABRICATION) (Community trade mark — Application for Community figurative mark BIO COMPLEXE DE PLANTES ENRICHI EN PROTÉINES PROPRE FABRICATION — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               26.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 354/35

         Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — Laverana v OHIM (BIO COMPLEXE DE PLANTES ENRICHI EN PROTÉINES PROPRE FABRICATION)
   (Case T-569/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for Community figurative mark BIO COMPLEXE DE PLANTES ENRICHI EN PROTÉINES PROPRE FABRICATION - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 354/40)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Laverana GmbH & Co. KG (Wennigsen, Germany) (represented by: J. Wachinger, M. Zöbisch and D. Chatterjee, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 May 2014 (Case R 122/2014-4) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign BIO COMPLEXE DE PLANTES ENRICHI EN PROTÉINES PROPRE FABRICATION as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Laverana GmbH & Co. KG to bear the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 361, 13.10.2014.


title: Case C-144/06 P: Appeal brought on  20 March 2006  by Henkel KGaA against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) delivered on  17 January 2006  in Case T-398/04 Henkel KGaA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
               20.5.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 121/7

         Appeal brought on 20 March 2006 by Henkel KGaA against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) delivered on 17 January 2006 in Case T-398/04 Henkel KGaA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   (Case C-144/06 P)
   (2006/C 121/12)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Appellant: Henkel KGaA (represented by: Dr C. Osterrieth, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 17 January 2006 in Case T-398/04 (1), notified on 23 January 2006 and annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 August 2004 (Case R771/1999-2) concerning the Community trade mark application No 000941971;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In its appeal, the appellant contends that there has been an infringement of substantive law as a result of the assessment, erroneous in law and in fact, of the requirement that the mark applied for be distinctive.
   In the judgment under appeal, the Court of First Instance wrongly stated that the sign claimed — a three-coloured figurative mark, which is an accurate depiction of a dishwasher and washing machine tablet — is not sufficiently distinctive. This view of the Court neither satisfies the previous criteria of the case-law of the Court of Justice with regard to the requirements which are to be met for a figurative mark to be distinctive, nor did it take account of the actual circumstances on the relevant market.
   There is nothing to support the Court's ‘general experience’ that the products in question are acquired without care and that the public will not be significantly influenced by the depiction of the product. Contrary to this assumption by the Court, the target public are completely accustomed to drawing immediate conclusions as to the manufacturer based only on the depiction of the specific, individually shaped product. In the market in question, it has become settled practice that the individual form of the dishwasher and washing machine tablets has a direct purpose as an indication of origin: each manufacturer uses different colourings to distinguish his product from those of other manufacturers.
   In testing distinctive character, it must simply be verified whether the sign claimed is suitable to distinguish the goods for which the application is made as coming from a particular company and thereby distinguishing these goods from those of other companies. Individuality and originality are not necessary and may not be used as the basis of a test. Since the appellant has chosen several elements, namely the rectangular shape, the layer structure as well as the insertion of an oval centre combined with the free choice of three colours, it has provided enough individual elements which show that the figurative mark is sufficiently distinctive.

      (1)  OJ 2006 C 74, p.18


title: Case T-74/00: Action brought on 30 March 2000 by Artegodan GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
27.5.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 149/41
— the re-opening and continuation of that competition                    — the contested decision infringes procedural rules, since it is
    constitute an inappropriate measure by which to give                     based on documents obtained by the Commission in 1994
    effect to the earlier judgments;                                         in the context of an investigation carried out in a separate
                                                                             case; such investigations were furthermore carried out in
— the re-opening and continuation of that competition are                    application of a Commission decision which was in fact
    contrary to the agreements reached between the parties;                  illegally adopted on the basis of both Articles 53 of the
                                                                             EEA Agreement and 85 of the EC Treaty; the contested
                                                                             decision also illegally relies on undated documents from
— the applicant’s contract for an indefinite period was                      an unknown source;
    terminated on the basis of his results in an internal
    competition, whereas, according to a Commission letter,
    failure to pass an external competition alone can constitute         — the contested decision fails to demonstrate the existence of
    a ground for terminating the employment relationship; the                the alleged infringement;
    contested decision dismissing the applicant is not reasoned;
    the dismissal was notified for a date which is legally               — the alleged agreement between European and Japanese
    incorrect.                                                               producers cannot in any event be regarded as having had
                                                                             an effect on trade between Member States;
                                                                         — the alleged agreement between European and Japanese
                                                                             producers cannot in any event be regarded as having had
                                                                             an appreciable effect on competition in the EC;
                                                                         — the duration of the infringement found by the Commission
                                                                             must at any event be regarded as erroneous;
Action brought on 24 March 2000 by Kawasaki Steel
Corporation against the Commission of the European
                           Communities                                   — in the event that the contested decision can be regarded as
                                                                             covering the EU offshore regions and in particular the UK
                                                                             offshore, the Commission has failed to state reasons for its
                          (Case T-71/00)                                     decision;
                         (2000/C 149/76)                                 — the fine imposed on the applicant should be reduced
                                                                             notably on the ground that any alleged agreement between
                                                                             the European producers should have been regarded as
                                                                             separate from the alleged agreement between the European
                   (Language of the case: English)                           and Japanese producers.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 24 March 2000 by Kawasaki Steel
Corporation, represented by Alexandre Vandencasteele and
Monica Cunningham of Liedekerke Siméon Wessing Houthoff,
Brussels.
                                                                         Action brought on 30 March 2000 by Artegodan GmbH
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           against the Commission of the European Communities
— annul the Commission decision of 8 December 1999 in
    case IV/EA/35.860-B Seamless steel tubes;                                                     (Case T-74/00)
— alternatively, to substantially reduce the fine imposed upon                                   (2000/C 149/77)
    the applicant;
— order the Commission to bear the costs of the procedure.                                 (Language of the case: German)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 30 March 2000 by Artegodan
                                                                         GmbH, of Lüchow, Germany, represented by Ulf Doepner,
The applicant submits that the contested decision should be              Rechtsanwalt, of Bruckhaus Westrick Heller Löber, Düsseldorf,
annulled and/or the fine imposed on it at least substantially            Germany, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
reduced for the following reasons:                                       Chambers of Bonn & Schmitt, 7 Val Ste Croix.
 ---pagebreak--- C 149/42                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                   27.5.2000
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                Action brought on 3 April 2000 by Bruno Farmaceutici
                                                                           S.p.A. and seven other companies against the Commission
— annul the Commission Decision of 9 March 2000 (K(2000)                                   of the European Communities
     453);
                                                                                (Case T-76/00)
— in the alternative, annul the decision in so far as Article 1
     in conjunction with Annex I requires the Federal Republic
     of Germany to withdraw authorisation for the applicant’s                                      (2000/C 149/78)
     preparation containing amfepramon ‘Tenuate Retard’;
— order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
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 applicant possesses a German authorisation for the                     European Communities on 3 April 2000 by Bruno Farmaceut-
medicinal product containing amfepramon ‘Tenuate Retard’.                  ici S.p.A., of Rome, and seven other companies, represented
By the present application it seeks annulment of the Com-                  by Burkhard Sträter, Rechtsanwalt, Bonn, Germany.
mission’s decision addressed to the Member States on with-
drawal of authorisation for medicinal products for human use
which contain that substance.                                              The applicants claim that the Court should:
The application is based in particular on the following grounds:           — annul Commission Decision K (2000) 453 of 9 March
                                                                               2000;
— The defendant was not entitled to adopt the contested
     decision. It wrongly bases its decision on Articles 14 and            — in the alternative, annul the decision in so far as Article 1
     15a of Directive 75/319 (1). The conditions under Article                 in conjunction with Annex I thereof requires the Member
     15a of the directive are not satisfied.                                   States Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy,
                                                                               Luxembourg, Spain and the United Kingdom to withdraw
— The European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal                          the authorisations for the applicants’ medicinal products
     Products altered the subject-matter of the procedure under                containing amfepramon;
     Article 15a of Directive 75/319, in breach of the directive.
                                                                           — order the Commission to pay the applicants’ necessary
— The conditions for withdrawal of authorisation under                         costs.
     Article 14 of Directive 75/319 and Article 11 of Directive
     65/65 (2) are not satisfied. Neither the harmfulness nor the
     lack of therapeutic efficacy of amfepramon has been
     established.                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
— The decision is furthermore disproportionate. The Com-
     mittee for Proprietary Medicinal Products regarded long-              The applicants are pharmaceutical undertakings which market
     term studies of the efficacy and side-effects of amfepramon           medicinal products containing amfepramon in various Mem-
     as necessary. Such studies could, however, also be carried            ber States. By the present application they seek annulment of
     out while the preparations continued, to be marketed.                 the Commission’s decision addressed to the Member States on
     Withdrawal of authorisation, on the other hand, is an                 withdrawal of authorisation for medicinal products for human
     irreparable measure and the one which burdens the holder              use which contain that substance. The application is based in
     of the authorisation most severely.                                   particular on the following grounds:
                                                                           — The initiation of the procedure under Article 15a of
(1) Second Council Directive 75/319/EEC of 20 May 1975 on the                  Directive 75/319/EEC (1) by Belgium was ineffective. The
    approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or
                                                                               Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products and the
    administrative action relating to proprietary medicinal products
    (OJ 1975 L 147, p. 13).                                                    Commission were therefore not entitled to carry out the
(2) Council Directive 65/65/EEC of 26 January 1965 on the approxi-             procedure and adopt the decision.
    mation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrat-
    ive action relating to proprietary medicinal products (OJ, English     — The excessive length of the procedure breached essential
    Special Edition 1965-1966, p. 20).
                                                                               procedural requirements.
                                                                           — The procedure on which the decision was based and the
                                                                               decision itself infringe provisions of Directive
                                                                               65/65/EEC (2).


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 September 2005 in Case C-512/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te 's-Hertogenbosch) in J.E.J. Blanckaert v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Particulieren/Ondernemingen buitenland te Heerlen (Direct taxation — Tax on income from savings and investments — Tax convention — Tax credits allowed only for persons insured under the national social security system)

text:
               12.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/3

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 8 September 2005
   in Case C-512/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te 's-Hertogenbosch) in J.E.J. Blanckaert v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Particulieren/Ondernemingen buitenland te Heerlen (1)

   (Direct taxation - Tax on income from savings and investments - Tax convention - Tax credits allowed only for persons insured under the national social security system)
   (2005/C 281/06)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   In Case C-512/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Gerechtshof te 's-Hertogenbosch ('s-Hertogenbosch Regional Court of Appeal) (Netherlands), made by decision of 4 December 2003, received at the Court on 8 December 2003, in the proceedings between J.E.J. Blanckaert and Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Particulieren/Ondernemingen buitenland te Heerlen — the Court (First Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, (Rapporteur) President of the Fourth Chamber, acting for the President of the First Chamber, N. Colneric, K. Schiemann, E. Juhász and M. Ilešič, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 8 September 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:
   Articles 56 EC and 58 EC must be interpreted as not precluding a law of a Member State under which a non-resident taxpayer who receives income in that State only from savings and investments and who is not insured under the social security system of that Member State cannot claim entitlement to tax credits in respect of national insurance, whereas a resident taxpayer who is insured under that social security system is entitled to those credits when his taxable income is calculated, even if he receives only income of that same kind and does not pay social security contributions.

      (1)  OJ C 47 of 21.02.2004.


title: Case C-285/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 14 June 2007 — Ernst & Young Deutsche Allgemeine Treuhand AG v Finanzamt Stuttgart-Körperschaften

text:
               20.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/2

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 14 June 2007 — Ernst & Young Deutsche Allgemeine Treuhand AG v Finanzamt Stuttgart-Körperschaften
   (Case C-285/07)
   (2007/C 247/02)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesfinanzhof
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ernst & Young Deutsche Allgemeine Treuhand AG

      Defendant: Finanzamt Stuttgart-Körperschaften
   Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 8(1) and (2) of Council Directive 90/434/EEC of 23 July 1990 (1) preclude the taxation rules of a Member State under which, on the transfer of shares in one European Union company limited by shares to another, the transferring party may maintain the book value of the shares transferred only if the receiving company has itself valued the shares transferred at their book value (‘double book value carryover’)?

               2.

               If the answer is in the negative: are the above rules contrary to Articles 43 EC and 56 EC, even though the ‘double book value carryover’ is required also on a transfer of shares in a company limited by shares to one that is subject to unlimited taxation?

      (1)  OJ 1990 L 225, p. 1.