title: Case C-542/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 4 December 2008 — Friedrich G. Barth v Bundesministerium für Wissenschaft und Forschung

text:
               18.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 90/7

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 4 December 2008 — Friedrich G. Barth v Bundesministerium für Wissenschaft und Forschung
   (Case C-542/08)
   2009/C 90/10
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Friedrich G. Barth

      Defendant: Bundesministerium für Wissenschaft und Forschung

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the application of a limitation rule providing for a time-limit of three years in which to bring proceedings in cases such as those which are the subject of the main proceedings in which on grounds of a domestic law situation incompatible with Community law, prior to the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities in Köbler (Case C-224/01), migrant workers were refused special length-of-service increments constitute for the purposes of Article 39 EC and Article 7(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 (1) indirect discrimination against migrant workers or a restriction on the right to freedom of movement for workers guaranteed by those provisions?

               2.

               If the first question is answered in the affirmative: Do Article 39 EC and Article 7(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 — in cases such as those which are the subject of the main proceedings — preclude the application of such a limitation rule on special length-of-service increments refused to migrant workers prior to the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities in Köbler (Case C-224/01) on grounds of a domestic law situation which was incompatible with Community law?

               3.

               In circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, in relation to claims seeking to enforce an entitlement to length-of-service increment previously denied — contrary to Community law — on the basis of unambiguously worded national legislation, does the principle of effectiveness preclude the application of limitation rules providing for a time-limit of three years in which to bring proceedings?

      (1)  OJ English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475


title: Case T-231/07: Action brought on 29 June 2007 — ITT Manufacturing Enterprises v OHIM — ITT Trademark & Trade (I.T.T.)

text:
               25.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 199/44

         Action brought on 29 June 2007 — ITT Manufacturing Enterprises v OHIM — ITT Trademark & Trade (I.T.T.)
   (Case T-231/07)
   (2007/C 199/83)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: ITT Manufacturing Enterprises Inc. (Wilmington, United States) (represented by: F. Delord, Solicitor)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: ITT Trademark & Trade GmbH (Munich, Germany)
   Form of order sought
   The applicant requests the Court to:

               —

               annul the contested decision, uphold decision No 565/2005 and order the defendant to pay the applicant's costs of this appeal; in the alternative

               —

               alter the contested decision, uphold decision No 565/2005 and order the defendant to pay the applicant's costs of this appeal.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: ITT Trademark & Trade GmbH

      Community trade mark concerned: The Community word mark ‘ITT’ for goods and services in Class 7, 9, and 11 — application No 1152339

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: ITT Manufacturing Enterprises Inc.

      Mark or sign cited: The national figurative trade marks as well as non-registered wellknown trade marks used in the course of trade in the Community containing or consisting of the word element ‘ITT’ for goods and services in a large number of Classes

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Rejected the opposition

      Pleas in law: The applicant contests the Board's finding according to which the Opposition Division based its decision on an incorrect mark.


title: Case T-128/07: Action brought on 23 April 2007 — Suez v OHIM (Delivering the essentials of life)

text:
               23.6.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 140/34

         Action brought on 23 April 2007 — Suez v OHIM (Delivering the essentials of life)
   (Case T-128/07)
   (2007/C 140/58)
   Language in which the application was lodged: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Suez SA (Paris, France) (represented by: P. Combeau, lawyer)

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

               —

               Annulment of the contested decision;

               —

               OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘Delivering the essentials of life’ for goods and services in Classes 1, 9, 11, 16, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 and 42 (Application No 4 102 497)

      Decision of the examiner: Refusal to register

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 (1), in that, contrary to the finding of the Board of Appeal of OHIM in the contested decision, the mark for which registration is sought has no strictly laudatory connotation and does not describe a characteristic or quality of the goods or services which it serves to designate.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1)


title: Case C-253/08: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 May 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2006/22/EC — Approximation of laws — Social legislation relating to road transport activities — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               4.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 153/14

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 May 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-253/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2006/22/EC - Approximation of laws - Social legislation relating to road transport activities - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   2009/C 153/26
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: N. Yerrell and M. Teles Romão, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes and F. Fraústo de Azevedo, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2006/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on minimum conditions for the implementation of Council Regulations (EEC) No 3820/85 and (EEC) No 3821/85 concerning social legislation relating to road transport activities and repealing Council Directive 88/599/EEC (OJ 2006 L 102, p. 35)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               declares that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on minimum conditions for the implementation of Council Regulations (EEC) No 3820/85 and (EEC) No 3821/85 concerning social legislation relating to road transport activities and repealing Council Directive 88/599/EEC, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 2006/22;

               2.

               orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 30.8.2008.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 4 March 2003 in Case T-316/02: Marie-Claude Girardot v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Action for annulment — Refusal to admit to the tests of a competition — Irregularity of the prior administrative procedure — Manifest inadmissibility of the action for annulment)

text:
C 112/32                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         10.5.2003
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
                         of 4 March 2003                                    —      annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the
                                                                                Office of 5 December 2002 in Case No R 1072/2000-2;
in Case T-316/02: Marie-Claude Girardot v Commission                        —      order the defendant to pay all the costs.
               of the European Communities ( 1)
(Officials — Action for annulment — Refusal to admit to
the tests of a competition — Irregularity of the prior                      Pleas in law and main arguments
administrative procedure — Manifest inadmissibility of the
                       action for annulment)                                Applicants for Com-            F. Dann and A. Backer
                                                                            munity trade mark:
                          (2003/C 112/62)
                                                                            Community trade mark           The word mark ‘HOOLIGAN’ —
                                                                            sought:                        application No 7179 filed in
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                respect of goods in Class 25
                                                                            Proprietor of mark or          The applicant
In Case T-316/02: Marie-Claude Girardot, residing in L’Haye                 sign cited in the oppo-
les Roses (France), represented by E. Boigelot, lawyer, with an             sition proceedings:
address for service in Luxembourg, against the Commission of
the European Communities (Agents: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart                    Mark or sign cited in          The French word mark and the
and H. Tserepa-Lacombe) — application for annulment of the                  opposition:                    international word mark ‘OLLY
rejection of the applicant’s application to take part in the tests                                         GAN’, registered, inter alia, for
for Internal Competition COM/R/502211/01 — the Court of                                                    goods in Class 25 (clothing)
First Instance (First Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf,
President, and R.M. Moura Ramos and H. Legal, Judges;                       Decision of the Oppo-          Refusal of the application for
H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 4 March 2003, the                  sition Division:               registration
operative part of of which is as follows:
                                                                            Decision of the Board of       Annulment of the decision of the
                                                                            Appeal:                        Opposition Division
1.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
                                                                            Pleas in law:                  Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of
2.    The parties are ordered to bear their own costs.                                                     Regulation (EC) No 40/94 and of
                                                                                the legal concept of likelihood of
                                                                                confusion.
( 1) OJ C 305 of 7.12.02.
Action brought on 20 February 2003 by Société Provença-                     Action brought on 24 February 2003 by Olimpiaki
le d’Achat et de Gestion (SPAG) against the Office for                      Aeroporia A.E. (Olympic Airways) against the Com-
            Harmonisation in the Internal Market                                        mission of the European Communities
                           (Case T-57/03)                                                             (Case T-68/03)
                          (2003/C 112/63)                                                            (2003/C 112/64)
                    (Language of the case: French)                                              (Language of the Case: Greek)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 20 February 2003 by Société                         European Communities on 24 February 2003 by Olimpiaki
Provençale d’Achat et de Gestion (SPAG), established in                     Aeroporia A.E. (Olympic Airways), whose seat is at 96-100
Marseilles, France, represented by K. Manhaeve, lawyer, with                Leoforos Singrou, 11741 Athens, Greece, represented by Denis
an address for service in Luxembourg. F. Dann and A. Backer,                Waelbroek, Efthimios Bourtzalas, Julian Ellison, Matthew Hall,
Frankfurt am Main, Germany, were also parties to the proceed-               Andreas Kalogeropoulos, Kharis Tagaras and Aristidis Khiote-
ings before the Board of Appeal.                                            lis, lawyers.


title: Case C-274/07: Action brought on 7 June 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Lithuania

text:
               4.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/24

         Action brought on 7 June 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Lithuania
   (Case C-274/07)
   (2007/C 183/42)
   Language of the case: Lithuanian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Braun and A. Steiblytė, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Lithuania
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by not managing to ensure in practice that authorities handling emergencies are, to the extent technically feasible, given caller location information for all callers to the single European emergency call number 112 when public telephone networks are used, the Republic of Lithuania has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 26(3) of Directive 2002/22/EC (1) on universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive);

               —

               order the Republic of Lithuania to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for transposing the directive into national law expired on 24 July 2003.

      (1)  OJ L 108, 24.4.2002, p. 51.


title: Case T-6/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 November 2008 — Galderma v OHIM — Lelas (Nanolat) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark Nanolat — Earlier national word mark TANNOLACT — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               10.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/24

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 November 2008 — Galderma v OHIM — Lelas (Nanolat)
   (Case T-6/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark Nanolat - Earlier national word mark TANNOLACT - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2009/C 6/49)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Galderma SA (Cham, Switzerland) (represented by: N. Hebeis, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Tihomir Lelas (Zagreb, Croatia) (represented by: H.-J. Omsels, lawyer)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 October 2006 (Case R 146/2006-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Galderma SA and Mr Tihomir Lelas
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               dismisses the action;

               2.

               orders Galderma SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 56, 10.3.2007.


title: Case C-315/04 P: Appeal brought on 23 July 2004 (14 July 2004 by fax) by Raffaele Dipace against the order made on 1 April 2004 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber) in Case T-106/04 between Raffaele Dipace and the Italian Republic

text:
               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/24

         Appeal brought on 23 July 2004 (14 July 2004 by fax) by Raffaele Dipace against the order made on 1 April 2004 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber) in Case T-106/04 between Raffaele Dipace and the Italian Republic
   (Case C-315/04 P)
   (2005/C 217/48)
   Language of the case: Italian
   An appeal against the order made on 1 April 2004 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-106/04 between Raffaele Dipace and the Italian Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 23 July 2004 (14 July 2004 by fax) by Raffaele Dipace.
   By order of 3 March 2005, the Court of Justice of the European Communities (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered Mr Dipace to bear his own costs.


title: Action brought on 10 September 1996 by Société des caves et des producteurs réunis de Roquefort and Others against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-140/96)

text:
No C 318/24            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   26 . 10 . 96
— the applicant claims that the indication ' average ' rather          — order the Commission to pay the whole of the costs .
    than 'good ' knowledge of French is intended merely for
    guidance and is not a requirement for admission to the
    competition. Paragraph 8 ( 3 ) of the notice of                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
    competition states that the third written test will 'consist
    of a number of questions intended to asess the ability to
    understand a text drafted in the applicant's second                Six French undertakings manufacturers of cheese preserved
    language' ( in this case, English ), while paragraph IX 2 ( a )    in brine made exclusively from ewe's milk which it markets
    specifies that knowledge of French will ' only' be taken           regularly as ' feta ', which is, moreover, a registered trade
    into account in the oral test .                                    mark, and a trade association whose members are the ewe's
                                                                       milk producers and the feta processors, challenge
                                                                       Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 1107/96 on the
Accordingly, marking the appropriate box under 'good' or               registration of geographical indications and designations of
'average' does not amount to an essential requirement for              origin under the procedure laid down in Article 17 of
admission to the competition but rather a mere criterion for           Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2081 /92 and which provides
guidance to be taken into account when assessing                       that the name ' feta ' consitutes a registered designation of
knowledge of French in the oral test. Thus, supporting                 origin reserved to the Greek State .
documents relating to knowledge of languages are not
requested in the notice of competition, which leads to the
assumption that, on the contrary, such knowledge may be                Tha applicants consider that the Commission should not
verified only in the tests .                                           have agreed to apply as it did the exception provided for
                                                                       pursuant to Article 17 of the abovementioned Regulation
                                                                       inasmuch as the Greek application did not meet the
                                                                       conditions required by that Article since it relied on
                                                                       protection recently afforded at national level after the
                                                                       Council Regulation entered into force .
                                                                       The applicants further state that, according to the
                                                                       information available to them, feta cheese does not meet the
Action brought on 10 September 1996 by Société des caves               criteria laid down in order to benefit from protection as a
et des producteurs réunis de Roquefort and Others against              protected designation on the grounds that:
      the Commission of the European Communities
                        ( Case T-140/96 )
                                                                      — ' feta ' does not describe a product which originates in a
                          ( 96/C 318/42 )                                   specific region or place,
               (Language of the case: French)                         — the production, processing and preparation of 'feta ' do
                                                                            not take place in a defined geographical area ,
An action against the Commission of the European                      — the quality or characteristics of ' feta ' are not essentially
Communities was brought before the Court of First                           or exclusively due to a particular geographical
Instance of the European Communities on 10 September                       environment with its inherent natural and human
1996 by Société des caves et des producteurs réunis de                      factors, and
Roquefort, established in Roquefort-sur-Salzon ( France ),
Société fromagère corse, established in Bastia ( France ),
Société pour la valorisation du lait de Brebis du grand               — ' feta ' is a name that has become generic which , as such,
Sud-Ouest, established in La Canourgue ( France ),                         may not be protected .
Compagnie des fromages, established in Vire ( France ),
Fromager du Causse, established in Roquefort ( France ),
Alliance agro producteurs de lait de brebis et des industriels        Moreover, the applicants claim that, by accepting Greece's
de Roquefort ( France )- and Confédération générale des               application the Commission has disregarded the principal
producteurs de lait de brebis et des industriels de Roquefort,        objectives which had been entrusted to it by the Council,
established in Millau ( France ), represerited by Frédéric            namely, to improve the common agricultural policy in the
Ancel , of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in              interest of both producers and consumers . On the one hand,
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz, 4 rue                  Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands produce and
Béatrix de Bourbon .                                                  market cheese under the disputed name, whereas Greece
                                                                      manufactures only half of the Community production . On
                                                                      the other, consumers are not better protected since the term
The applicant claims that the Court should :                          ' feta ' covers cheese prepared from ewe's, goat's or cow's
                                                                      milk or even a mixture of all three .
— annul Article 1 of Commission Regulation ( EC )
    No 1 107/96 of 12 June 1 996 in so far as it registers the
    name ' feta ' as a protected designation of origin,


               23.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/71

         Action brought on 31 August 2004 by Prosessindustriens Landsforening, Borregaard, Elkem ASA, Norsk Hydro ASA, Eramet Norway AS, Norske Skogindustrier ASA, Södra Cell Folla AS, Tinfos Titan & Iron KS, and Yara International ASA against the EFTA Surveillance Authority
   (Case E-6/04)
   (2004/C 319/13)
   An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 31 August 2004 by Prosessindustriens Landsforening, Borregaard, Elkem ASA, Norsk Hydro ASA, Eramet Norway AS, Norske Skogindustrier ASA, Södra Cell Folla AS, Tinfos Titan & Iron KS, and Yara International ASA, represented by Onno W. Brouwer, advocaat, and Michael Schuette, Rechtsanwalt, Freshfields Bruckhaus Derringer, Bastion Tower, Place du Champ de Mars 5, 1050 Brussels.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               Annul the EFTA Surveillance Authority's Decision 148/04/COL dated 30 June 2004; and

               2.

               Order the EFTA Surveillance Authority to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

               —

               EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision 148/04/COL of 30 June 2004 (the ‘Decision’) concerns electricity tax and considers the failure to apply that tax to the manufacturing industry to constitute State aid.

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority has violated Article 61(1) EEA.

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority has violated Article 61 EEA and Part II of Protocol 3 on State aid regarding the qualification of existing aid as new aid.

               —

               The Decision infringes the principle of legal certainty.

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority failed to follow proper procedure, violating Articles 17, 18 and 19 of Part II of Protocol 3 to the ESA/Court Agreement.

               —

               The Decision violates Articles 61 and 62 EEA as regards recovery of aid.


title: Case C-161/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece) lodged on 8 May 2009 — Κ. Frangopoulos kai Sia OE v Nomarkhiaki Avtodiikisi Korinthias

text:
               4.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 153/29

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece) lodged on 8 May 2009 — Κ. Frangopoulos kai Sia OE v Nomarkhiaki Avtodiikisi Korinthias
   (Case C-161/09)
   2009/C 153/54
   Language of the case: Greek

      Referring court

   Simvoulio tis Epikratias

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Κ. Frangopoulos kai Sia OE

      Defendant: Nomarkhiaki Avtodiikisi Korinthias

      Questions referred

               1.

               Can a company operating under the conditions under which the applicant operates, that is to say, as a dried grape processing and packing company established in a specific area of the country to which it is prohibited by law to bring different varieties of drying grapes from other areas of the country for the purpose of processing and packing, thereby preventing it from exporting dried grapes which it would have processed from such drying grapes, plead in court that the legislative measures in question conflict with Article 29 EC?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, do provisions such as those in internal Greek law governing the dispute at issue which, on the one hand, prohibit drying grapes from being brought from different areas of the country, for the purpose of storage, processing and onward export, to a specific area in which it is only permitted to process locally grown drying grapes and, on the other hand, reserve the possibility of recognising protected designation of origin solely for drying grapes which have been processed and packed in the specific area in which they were grown, conflict with Article 29 EC which prohibits quantitative restrictions on exports or measures having equivalent effect?

               3.

               If the answer to the second question is in the affirmative, does protection of the quality of a product which is defined geographically by the national law of a Member State and which has not been granted the possibility of bearing a particular distinguishing name which would mark its generally acknowledged superior quality and uniqueness due to its originating from a certain geographical area, constitute, within the meaning of Article 30 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, a legitimate objective of overriding public interest which justifies a derogation from Article 29 EC prohibiting quantitative restrictions on exports of the said product and measures having equivalent effect?


title: Case C-475/03: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 3 October 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Cremona — Italy) — Banca popolare di Cremona Soc. coop. arl v Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Cremona (Sixth VAT Directive — Article 33(1) — Prohibition on the levying of other domestic taxes which can be characterised as turnover taxes — Definition of turnover taxes — Italian regional tax on productive activities)

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/3

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 3 October 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Cremona — Italy) — Banca popolare di Cremona Soc. coop. arl v Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Cremona
   (Case C-475/03) (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Article 33(1) - Prohibition on the levying of other domestic taxes which can be characterised as turnover taxes - Definition of ‘turnover taxes’ - Italian regional tax on productive activities)
   (2006/C 294/05)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Commissione tributaria provinciale di Cremona
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Banca popolare di Cremona Soc. coop. arl

      Defendant: Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Cremona
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Commissione tributaria provinciale di Cremona — Interpretation of Article 33 of Directive 77/388/EEC: Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1), as amended by Council Directive 91/680/EEC of 16 December 1991 (OJ 1991 L 376, p. 1) — Compatibility of national legislation introducing a regional tax on production activities
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 33 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 91/680/CEE of 16 December 1991, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude the maintenance of a charge to tax with the characteristics of the tax at issue in the main proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 21, 24.01.2004.


title: Case C-174/04: Action brought on 13 April 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
               12.6.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/5

         Action brought on 13 April 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
   (Case C-174/04)
   (2004/C 156/10)
   An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 13 April 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Enrico Traversa and Claudio Loggi, acting as Agents.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare that Decree-Law No 192 of 25 May 2001, converted to Law No 301 of 20 July 2001, entitled ‘Urgent provisions to ensure the liberalisation and privatisation of particular public service sectors’ is incompatible with Article 56 of the EC Treaty in so far as it automatically suspends the voting rights attached to shareholdings exceeding 2 % of the share capital of companies in the electricity and gas sectors;

               —

               Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   Decree-Law 192/2001 conflicts with Article 56 of the EC Treaty because it automatically suspends the voting rights attached to shareholdings exceeding 2 % of the share capital of companies in the electricity and gas sectors. That threshold engenders a separate and restrictive treatment of investments on the part of a particular category of investors and therefore obstructs the free movement of capital within the European Community. In particular, that restriction is a disincentive to any public undertakings which might wish to acquire shares in the companies in question since such undertakings will be unable to take any active role in the decision-making of the company and exercise any influence over its management.


title: Case C-470/10: Action brought on 28 September 2010 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

text:
               4.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/19

         Action brought on 28 September 2010 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-470/10)
   ()
   2010/C 328/34
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. França and I.V. Rogalski, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by maintaining a requirement of registration and accreditation by the Portuguese authorities for any temporary provision of services by Community patent agents who are already established in another Member State and by checking the professional qualifications of Community patent agents who travel to Portugal, even in relation to a temporary service, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56 TFEU and Articles 5 to 7 of Directive 2005/36/EC (1) on the recognition of professional qualifications.

               —

               order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Portuguese legislation at issue prevents a patent and trade mark agent, legally established in another Member State, from exercising his activities of representation before the National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI — Instituto Nacional da Propriedade Industrial) in Portugal, when he travels there to provide services to clients located in another Member State, if he has not previously undergone a test examination to be accredited or recognised by that institute.

      (1)  OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 20 April 2005 in Case T-318/03 Atomic Austria GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Word mark ATOMIC BLITZ — Opposition of the proprietor of national word marks ATOMIC — Evidence of renewal of registration of the earlier mark — Scope of the examination conducted by OHIM — Rejection of opposition — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               25.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/17

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 20 April 2005
   in Case T-318/03 Atomic Austria GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Word mark ATOMIC BLITZ - Opposition of the proprietor of national word marks ATOMIC - Evidence of renewal of registration of the earlier mark - Scope of the examination conducted by OHIM - Rejection of opposition - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2005/C 155/33)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case T-318/03: Atomic Austria GmbH, established in Altenmarkt (Austria), represented by G. Kucsko and C. Schumacher, lawyers, against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: G. Schneider and B. Müller), the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal having been Fabricas Agrupadas de Muñecas de Onil, SA, established in Onil (Spain) — action against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 July 2003 (Case R 95/2003-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Atomic Austria GmbH and Fabricas Agrupadas de Muñecas de Onil, SA, — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President, A.W.H. Meij and I. Pelikánová, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 20 April 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 9 July 2003 (Case R 95/2003-2);

               2.

               Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 304 of 13.12.2003.


title: Case T-334/12: Judgment of the General Court of 12 June 2015 — Plantavis and NEM v Commission and EFSA (Consumer protection — Health claims made on foods — Regulation (EU) No 432/2012 — Action for annulment — Regulatory act not entailing implementing measures — Direct concern — Admissibility — Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 — Plea of illegality — Register of health claims)

text:
               27.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 June 2015 — Plantavis and NEM v Commission and EFSA
   (Case T-334/12) (1)

   ((Consumer protection - Health claims made on foods - Regulation (EU) No 432/2012 - Action for annulment - Regulatory act not entailing implementing measures - Direct concern - Admissibility - Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 - Plea of illegality - Register of health claims))
   (2015/C 245/18)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: Plantavis GmbH (Berlin, Germany); and NEM, Verband mittelständischer europäischer Hersteller und Distributoren von Nahrungsergänzungsmitteln & Gesundheitsprodukten eV (Laudert, Germany) (represented by: T. Büttner, lawyer)

      Defendants: European Commission (represented by: L. Pignataro-Nolin and S. Grünheid, acting as Agents); and European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (represented by: D. Detken, acting as Agent, and by R. Van der Hout and A. Köhler, lawyers)

      Intervener in support of the defendant European Commission: European Parliament (represented by: J. Rodrigues and P. Schonard, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendants, European Commission and EFSA: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Simm and I. Šulce, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment, first, of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods (OJ 2006 L 404, p. 9), and, secondly, of Commission Regulation (EU) No 432/2012 of 16 May 2012 establishing a list of permitted health claims made on foods, other than those referring to the reduction of disease risk and to children’s development and health (OJ 2012 L 136, p. 1), and of the Register of nutrition and health claims made on food, published on the website of the Commission.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Plantavis GmbH and NEM, Verband mittelständischer europäischer Hersteller und Distributoren von Nahrungsergänzungsmitteln & Gesundheitsprodukten eV to bear their own costs and, in addition, to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA);

               3.

               Orders the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 311, 13.10.2012.


title: Case C-573/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amminstrativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy) lodged on 28 December 2007 — Sea Srl v Comune di Ponte Nossa

text:
               8.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 64/27

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amminstrativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy) lodged on 28 December 2007 — Sea Srl v Comune di Ponte Nossa
   (Case C-573/07)
   (2008/C 64/39)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   The Tribunale Amminstrativo Regionale per la Lombardia
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Sea Srl

      Defendant: Comune di Ponte Nossa
   Question referred
   Is the direct award of a contract for the collection, transport and disposal of solid urban and similar waste to a wholly publicly owned limited company, the relevant statutes of which — for the purposes of Article 113 of Legislative Decree No 267 of 18 August 2000 — are set out in the grounds of this order, compatible with Community law and, in particular, with the freedom of establishment or freedom to provide services, the prohibition of discrimination and the obligations relating to equal treatment, transparency and free competition, as referred to in Articles 12 EC, 43 EC, 45 EC, 46 EC, 49 EC and 86 EC?


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 26 September 1996 in Case T-192/94: Henry Maurissen v. Court of Auditors of the European Communities (Action for annulment - Staff report - Admissibility - Statement of reasons - Review by the Court - Limits)

text:
26 . 10 . 96           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 318/9
3.    orders the Commission to bear its own costs.                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 24 September 1996
(') OJ No C 161 , 11 . 6 . 1994 .
                                                                       in Case T-185/95 : Giovanni Sergio v. Commission of the
( 2 ) OJ No L 333 , 1993 , p . 67 .
                                                                                European Communities ( 1 )
                                                                       (Officials — Transfer of pension rights — General
                                                                       provisions forgiving effect to the StaffRegulations — Time
                                                                                limit for submitting a request)
                                                                                96/C 318/ 19 )
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                     of 24 September 1996                                             (Language of the case: French)
in    Case   T-57/91 :    National   Association     of Licensed
Opencast Operators v. Commission of the European
                         Communities ( 1 )                             In Case T-185/95 : Giovanni Sergio, an official of the
 (ECSC Treaty — Competition — National undertaking                     Commission of the European Communities, represented by
 owning coal reserves and enjoying a statutory monopoly on             Marc-Albert Lucas, of the Liege Bar, with an address for
 the granting of extraction licences — Consideration on the            service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Evelyne Korn, 21
part of the licensee represented by payment of a royalty or            rue Nassau, v. Commission of the European Communities
supply of the coal to the licensor — Rate ofroyalties levied           ( Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia and Ana Maria Alves Vieira ) —
— Price of coal supplied — Whether compatible with the                 application for annulment of the decision of the
                           ECSC Treaty)                                Commission rejecting the request for transfer of the
                                                                       applicant's pension rights — the Court of First Instance
                           ( 96/C 318/ 18 )
                                                                       ( Third Chamber ), composed of: C. P. Briët, President, and
                                                                       B. Vesterdorf and A. Potocki, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has
                (Language of the case: English)                        given a judgment on 24 September 1996 , in which it:
In Case T-57/91 : The National Association of Licensed
 Opencast Operators, having its registered office in                    1 . dismisses the action as inadmissible in so far as it seeks
Newcastle upon Tyne ( United Kingdom ), represented by                      the issue of directions to the Commission;
Nicholas Green, Barrister, and David James Malcolm
Wilson, Solicitor, with an address for service in
 Luxembourg at the Chambers of Victor Gillen, 13 rue                   2 . dismisses the remainder of the action as unfounded;
Aldringen, against the Commission of the European
 Communities ( Agents : Julian Currall, Stephen Kon and                3 . orders the parties to bear their own costs.
 Leonard Hawkes ), supported by the British Coal
 Corporation, having its registered office in London,
 represented by David Vaughan QC and David Lloyd Jones,                (') OJ No C 333 , 9 . 12 . 1995 .
 Barrister, together with Peter J. Sigler and Rebekah M.
 Gershuny, Solicitors, with an address for service in
 Luxembourg at the Chambers of M. Loesch, 8 rue Zithe —
 application for the annulment in part of Commission
 decision SG(91 ) D/9467 of 23 May 1991 rejecting the
 applicant's complaint concerning the market in coal for
 electricity generation — the Court of First Instance ( Third
 Chamber, Extended Composition ), composed of: C. P.
 Briët, President, K. Lenaerts, B. Vesterdorf, P. Lindh and A.          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 Potocki, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the                              of 26 September 1996
 Registrar, has given a judgment on 24 September 1996 , in             in Case T-192/94: Henry Maurissen v. Court of Auditors of
 which it :                                                                            the European Communities (*)
                                                                        (Action for annulment — Staff report — Admissibility —
 1 . declares inadmissible the second, seventh and ninth                 Statement of reasons — Review by the Court — Limits)
       heads of claim;                                                                           ( 96/C 318 /20
 2 . dismisses the remainder of the applicant 's claims;
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
 3 . Orders the applicant to pay all the costs of the
       proceedings, including those of the intervener British
       Coal.                                                            In Case T-192/94 : Henry Maurissen, a former official at the
                                                                        Court of Auditors of the European Communities, residing at
                                                                        Schuttrange ( Luxembourg ), represented by Jean-Noel
 (') OJ No C 243 , 18 . 9 . 1991 .                                      Louis, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                        Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 1 rue
                                                                        Glesener, v. Court of Auditors of the European
 ---pagebreak--- No C 318/ 10          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    26 . 10 . 96
Communities ( Agents : Jean-Marie Stenier and Jan                    Action brought on 24 July 1996 by Edouard Dubois et Fils
Inghelram ) — application for the annulment of the decision          SA against the Commission of the European Communities
of 12 July 1993 establishing the applicant's staff report for                   and the Council of the European Union
the period from 1 January 1990 to 31 December 1991 and,                                      ( Case T-l 13/96 )
in so far as necessary, the decision notified on 22 February
                                                                                ( 96/C 318/22 )
1 994 expressly rejecting his complaint against that report —
the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber), composed of: A.
Saggio, President, V. Tiili and R. M. Moura-Ramos, Judges;                           (Language of the case: French)
B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has
given a judgment on 26 September 1996 , in which it:
                                                                     An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities and the Council of the European Union was
1 . dismisses the application;                                       brought before the Court of First Instance on 24 July 1996
                                                                     by Edouard Dubois et Fils SA, having its seat at Roubaix
2 . orders the parties to bear their own costs.                      ( France ), represented by Pierre Ricard, Avocat au Conseil
                                                                     d'Etat, and Alain Crosson du Cormier, of the Paris Bar, with
                                                                     an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
(') OJ No C 174, 25 . 6 . 1994 .
                                                                     Marc Feiler, 67 rue Ermesinde .
                                                                     The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                     — declare the defendants liable, within the meaning of the
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                second paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty, for
                                                                          the damage caused to the applicant by the repercussions
                        of 10 July 1996                                   on its activities as 'commissionnaire agree en douane '
in Case T-208/95 : Miwon Co . Ltd v. Commission of the                    ( authorized customs agent) of application of the Single
                  European Communities ( 1 )                              European Act establishing an area for the free movement
(Dumping — Monosodium glutamate — Commission                              of goods and services within the frontiers of the Member
Regulation finding a breach of a price undertaking and                    States from 1 January 1993 ,
imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty — Action for
annulment — Subsequent adoption of a regulation                      — order the defendants jointly to pay the applicant a sum of
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty — Case not                        FF 112 339 702 as compensation for that damage,
                   proceeding to judgment)
                          ( 96/C 318/21 )                            — order the defendants to pay the costs .
               (Language of the case: English)                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
In     Case  T-208/95 :     Miwon    Co . Ltd   established  at      The applicant company, whose principal business is that of
Dongdaemun-Ku ( Seoul, Republic of Korea ), represented              forwarding agent and connected activities, states that, in 16
by Jean-Francois Bellis, of the Brussels Bar, with an address        of its establishments situated at various points on French
for service in Luxembourg at the chambers of A. F. Brausch,          territory, it availed itself of the ministerial authorization
8 rue Zithe, v. Commission of the European Communities               which it had been granted pursuant to the Code des
                                                                     Douanes ( Customs code ) to act as an authorized customs
( Agent: Nicholas Khan ) — application for the annulment of
Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 1754/95 of 18 July 1995              agent, a profession which, for varying remuneration, carries
imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of               out on behalf of others, customs formalities consisting in the
monosodium glutamate originating in Indonesia , the                  detailed declaration of goods crossing frontiers for the
                                                                     purposes of the collection of duties .
Republic of Korea, Taiwan and Thailand ( 2), in so far as it
concerns Miwon Co . Ltd — the Court of First Instance
( Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition ), composed of: R.             The applicant also states that application, from 1 January
Schintgen, President, and R. Garcia-Valdecasas, V. Tiili, J.         1993 , of the Single European Act establishing an area
Azizi and R. Moura-Ramos, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has            without internal frontiers for the member countries had
made an order on 10 July 1996 , in which it orders :                 profound repercussions from the financial and social point
                                                                     of view on the businesses operated by authorized customs
                                                                     agents . It points out, first, that the measures taken by the
1 . the case is not to proceed to judgment;                          Community authorities to mitigate those problems could
                                                                     only very partially make up for the considerable effects of
2 . each party shall bear its own costs.                             the abolition of the internal frontiers of the Community for
                                                                     the profession of authorized customs forwarding agents
                                                                     and, secondly, that those measures were not compensatory
(•) OJ No C 351 , 30 . 12 . 1995 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 170, 1995 , p . 4 .
                                                                     in nature at all but sought solely to alleviate the exceptional
                                                                     financial burden incurred in the management of
                                                                     forwardings depots which were required to continue
                                                                     operating until 31 December 1992 .


title: Case F-25/05: Judgement of the Civil Service Tribunal of  15 June 2006  (Second Chamber) — Mc Sweeny and Armstrong v Commission (Open competition — Competition notice — Guide for candidates — Non-admission to the tests — Diplomas required — Power of the Appointing Authority)

text:
               29.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/41

         Judgement of the Civil Service Tribunal of 15 June 2006 (Second Chamber) — Mc Sweeny and Armstrong v Commission
   (Case F-25/05) (1)

   (Open competition - Competition notice - Guide for candidates - Non-admission to the tests - Diplomas required - Power of the Appointing Authority)
   (2006/C 178/76)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: Dypna Mc Sweeny (Brussels, Belgium) and Pauline Armstrong (Overijse, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, X. Martin, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Tserepa-Lacombe and K. Hermann, Agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of the decisions of the selection board of 6 and 7 September 2004 not to admit the applicants to the EPSO/C/11/03 competition tests (OJ 2003 C 267 A, p. 1.), organised for the purposes of drawing up a reserve list of English-language secretaries (C 5/ C4).
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decisions of the selection board of 6 and 7 September 2004 not to admit the applicants to the tests for Competition EPSO/C/11/03.

               2.

               Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 182, of 23.7.2005 (case initially registered before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities under number T-184/05 and transferred to the European Union Civil Service Tribunal by order of 15.12.2005).


title: Case T-234/05: Action brought on 13 June 2005 by Gerrit Bethuyne and four others against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               20.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/31

         Action brought on 13 June 2005 by Gerrit Bethuyne and four others against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-234/05)
   (2005/C 205/56)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 13 June 2005 by Gerrit Bethuyne, residing in Dentergem (Belgium), and four others, represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Xavier Martin, Albert Coolen and Etienne Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               1.

               annul the decisions to appoint the applicants officials of the European Communities, insofar as those decisions determine their grade of recruitment in accordance with Article 12 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations;

               2.

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas and arguments relied on by the applicants are identical to those of the applicants in Case T-130/05 (1).

      (1)  OJ C 132, 28.5.2005, p. 31.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 17 July 1997 in Case C-90/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret): Haahr Petroleum Ltd v. Åbenrå Havn, Ålborg Havn, Horsens Havn, Kastrup Havn NKE A/S, Næstved Havn, Odense Havn, Struer Havn, Vejle Havn, also represented: Trafikministeriet (Maritime transport - Goods duty - Import surcharge)

text:
C 295/2               I EN 1                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      27. 9 . 97
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                        of the fact that they were unable to benefit at the
                          (Fifth Chamber)                                    appropriate time from the financial advantages
                                                                             guaranteed by the Directive with the result that such
                          of 10 July 1997                                    loss must also be made good.
in Case C-373/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Pretura Circondariale, Venice): Federica Maso and                   2 . The 'onset of the employer's insolvency ', referred to in
Others, Graziano Gazzetta and Others v. Istituto                             Articles 3 (2) and 4 (2) of Directive 80/987/EEC,
Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale (INPS ), Italian                          corresponds to the date of the request that proceedings
                              Republic ( 1 )                                 to satisfy collectively the claims of creditors be
                                                                             opened, since the guarantee cannot be provided prior
(Social policy — Protection of employees in the event of                     to a decision to open such proceedings or to a finding
the insolvency of their employer — Directive 80/987/EEC                      that the business has been definitively closed down
— Liability of the guarantee institutions limited —                          where the assets are insufficient.
Liability of a Member State arising from belated
     transposition of a directive — Adequate reparation)
                                                                        3 . Articles 4 (3) and 10 of Directive 80/987 must be
                            ( 97/C 295/02 )
                                                                             interpreted as meaning that a Member State may not
                                                                             prohibit the aggregation of amounts guaranteed by the
                                                                             Directive with an allowance such as the indennita di
                  (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                             mobilita (job-seeker's allowance), provided for in
                                                                             Articles 4 and 16 of Law No 223 of 23 July 1991 ,
                                                                             which is aimed at meeting the needs of an employee
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be              who has been dismissed during the three months
           published in the European Court Reports)                          following termination of the employment relationship.
In Case C-3 73/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177            4 . The phrase 'the last three months of the contract of
of the EC Treaty from the Pretura Circondariale ( District                   employment or employment relationship ' used in
Magistrate's Court), Venice ( Italy), for a preliminary                      Article 4 (2) of Directive 80/987/EEC must be
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court                          interpreted as meaning three rolling months.
between Federica Maso and Others, Graziano Gazzetta
and Others and Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale              (') OJ C 16 , 20 . 1 . 1996 .
( INPS ), Italian Republic — on the interpretation of
Articles 2, 3 ( 2 ), 4 (2 ) and ( 3 ) and 10 of 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
employer ( OJ L 283 , 20 . 10 . 1980, p. 23 ) and of the
principle of State liability for loss or damage caused to                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
individuals by a breach of Community law attributable to                                          ( Sixth Chamber)
the State — the Court ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of: J. C.
Moitinho de Almeida, President of the Chamber, L. Sevon,                                           of 17 July 1997
D. A. O. Edward, P. Jann and M. Wathelet (Rapporteur),                  in Case C-90/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate-General; L. Hewlett,                        the Østre Landsret ): Haahr Petroleum Ltd v. Åbenrå
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on               Havn, Ålborg Havn, Horsens Havn, Kastrup Havn NKE
 10 July 1997, in which it has ruled :                                  A/S, Næstved Havn, Odense Havn, Struer Havn, Vejle
                                                                                Havn, also represented: Trafikministeriet (')
 1 . In making good the loss or damage sustained by                       (Maritime transport — Goods duty — Import surcharge)
      employees as a result of the belated transposition of                                           ( 97/C 295/03 )
      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                            (Language of the case: Danish)
      the insolvency of their employer, a Member State is
      entitled to apply retroactively to such employees
      belatedly adopted implementing measures, including                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
      rules against aggregation or other limitations on the                       published in the European Court Reports)
      liability of the guarantee institution, provided that the
      Directive has been properly transposed. However, it is
      for the national court to ensure that reparation of the           In Case C-90/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
      loss or damage sustained by the beneficiaries is                  of the EC Treaty from the 0stre Landsret ( Denmark ) for a
      adequate. Retroactive and proper application in full of           preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
      the measures implementing the Directive will suffice              court between Haahr Petroleum Ltd and Abenra Havn,
      for that purpose unless the beneficiaries establish the           Alborg Havn, Horsens Havn, Kastrup Havn NKE A/S,
      existence of complementary loss sustained on account              Nasstved Havn, Odense Havn, Struer Havn, Vejle Havn,
 ---pagebreak--- 27. 9 . 97              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 295/3
also represented: Trafikministeriet, on the interpretation of         Community ( OJ L 175 , 1 . 7. 1986, p. 1 ) and Council
Articles 9 to 13 , 84 and 95 of the EEC Treaty, the Court             Regulation ( EEC ) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992
( Sixth Chamber ), composed of G. F. Mancini, President of            establishing the Community Customs Code ( OJ L 302,
the Chamber, J. L. Murray and P. J. G. Kapteyn                        19 . 10. 1992, p. 1 ) — the Court ( Fifth Chamber),
( Rapporteur ), Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General ; H.           composed of: J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, President of the
von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, gave a             Chamber, L. Sevon, D. A. O. Edward ( Rapporteur ), P.
judgment on 17 July 1997, in which it has ruled :                     Jann and M. Wathelet, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate
                                                                      General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                      17 July 1997, in which it has ruled :
1 . It is contrary to Article 95 of the EEC Treaty for a
     Member State to impose a 40% import surcharge on a
     general duty levied on goods loaded, unloaded, or                1 . A communication addressed to the authorities of the
     otherwise taken on board or landed within its ports or               State of importation by the authorities of the State of
     in the deep-water approach channels to its ports where               exportation following subsequent verification of an
     goods are imported by ship from another Member                       EUR.l movement certificate, in which the latter
     State.
                                                                          merely confirm that the certificate in question was
                                                                           improperly issued and must therefore be cancelled,
                                                                           without setting out in detail the reasons justifying
2 . Application to a claim for repayment based on breach                   cancellation, must be regarded as 'results of . . .
     of Article 95 of a rule of national law under which                   verification ' within the meaning of Article 25 (3) of
     proceedings for recovery of charges unduly paid are                  Annex II to Council Decision 86/283/EEC of 30 June
     time-barred after a period of five years is not contrary              1986 on the association of the overseas countries and
     to Community law, even if the effect of that rule is to               territories with the European Economic Community.
     prevent, in whole or in part, the repayment of those                  The authorities of the State of importation are entitled
     charges.                                                              to bring an action for recovery of the uncollected
                                                                           customs duties on the basis of such a communication
(') OJ C 120, 30 . 4 . 1994 .                                             alone, without seeking to establish the true origin of
                                                                           the goods imported.
                                                                      2 . The responsibility of the exporter, as referred to in
                                                                          Article 10 (1 ) of Annex II to Decision 86/283/EEC,
                                                                          does not extend to customs duties which prove to be
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      due in respect of the importation into the European
                                                                           Community of goods which are the subject of an
                          ( Fifth Chamber)
                                                                          EUR.l movement certificate, even where the latter
                          of 17 July 1997                                 was issued on the basis of false information supplied
                                                                           by the exporter as to the origin of the goods and was
in Case C-97/95 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from                 cancelled following subsequent verification.
the Tribunal Tributário de Segunda Instância ): Pascoal &
               Filhos Lda v. Fazenda Pública (')
(Customs duties — Methods of administrative cooperation               3 . The fact of requiring an importer who has acted in
— Procedures for verifying EUR.l certificates — Post                     good faith to pay customs duties payable on the
clearance recovery of customs duties — Person responsible                 importation of goods in respect of which the exporter
                       for the customs debt)                              has committed a customs offence, where the importer
                                                                          has played no part in that offence, is not contrary to
                            ( 97/C 295/04                                  the general principles of law which the Court is
                                                                          required to uphold.
              (Language of the case: Portuguese)
                                                                      4 . The fact that the authorities of the State of
                                                                          exportation issued an EUR.l movement certificate
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be            pursuant to Decision 86/283/EEC without having
          published in the European Court Reports)                         carried out any prior check to determine the true
                                                                           origin of the goods in question does not constitute a
                                                                           case of force majeure preventing post-clearance
In Case C-97/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177                recovery of customs duties owed by an importer who
of the EC Treaty from the Tribunal Tributario de Segunda                  has acted in good faith.
Instancia ( Fiscal Court of Second Instance ) ( Portugal ) for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Pascoal & Filhos Lda and Fazenda Publica                (') Of C 174, 8 . 7. 1995 .
— on the interpretation of Council Decision 86/283/EEC
of 30 June 1986 on the association of the overseas
countries and territories with the European Economic


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 9 July 2003 in Case T-288/02 R: Asian Institute of Technology (AIT) v Commission of the European Communities (Procedure for interim relief — Urgency — None)

text:
C 7/34                  EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         10.1.2004
1.    Orders the Commission to pay the applicant the sum of                ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
      EUR 3 000, in addition to the sum of EUR 1 500 already                                           INSTANCE
      awarded by the Appointing Authority.
2.    Dismisses the remainder of the action.                                                          of 9 July 2003
3.    Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                           in Case T-288/02 R: Asian Institute of Technology (AIT) v
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
(1) OJ C 118 of 18.5.2002.
                                                                                (Procedure for interim relief — Urgency — None)
                                                                                (2004/C 7/63)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                        of 21 October 2003
in Case T-392/02: Solvay Pharmaceuticals BV v Council of
                      the European Union (1)
                                                                           In Case T-288/02 R: Asian Institute of Technology (AIT),
                                                                           established in Pathumthani (Thailand), represented by H. Teis-
(Directive 70/524/EEC — Community authorisation, linked
                                                                           siers du Cros, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxem-
to the person responsible for putting into circulation, of an
                                                                           bourg, against Commission of the European Communities
additive in animal feedingstuff — Transitional rules —
                                                                           (Agents: P.-J. Kuijper and B. Schöfer) — application for
Withdrawal of the authorisation — Action for annulment —
                                                                           suspension of operation of the decision of the Commission of
Admissibility — Conditions for withdrawal — Precautionary
                                                                           22 February 2002 to conclude a research contract with the
principle — Principles of equal treatment, legal certainty,
                                                                           Center for Energy-Environment Research and Development —
              sound administration and good faith)
                                                                           the President of the Court of First Instance made an order on
                                                                           9 July 2002, the operative part of which is as follows:
                            (2004/C 7/62)
                    (Language of the case: French)                         1.    The application for interim relief is dismissed.
                                                                           2.    Costs are reserved.
In Case T-392/02: Solvay Pharmaceuticals BV, established in
Weesp (Netherlands), represented by C. Meijer, F. Herbert and
M. L. Struys, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxem-
bourg, against Council of the European Union (Agents: M. Balta
and M. Ruggery Laderchi), supported by Commission of the
European Communities (Agent: A. Bordes), application for the
annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1756/2002 of
23 September 2002 amending Directive 70/524/EEC concern-
ing additives in feedingstuffs as regards withdrawal of the                Action brought on 8 October 2003 by Deutsche Post
authorisation of an additive and amending Commission Regu-                 AG and Securicor Omega Express Limited against the
lation (EC) No 2430/1999 (OJ 2002 L 265, p. 1) — the                               Commission of the European Communities
Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of
N. J. Forwood, President, J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges;
H. Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on 21 October 2003, in                                           (Case T-343/03)
which it:
1.    Dismisses the application.                                                                      (2004/C 7/64)
2.    Orders the applicant to bear his own costs and pay those
      incurred by the Council, including those incurred in the                                (Language of the case: German)
      interlocutory proceedings.
3.    Orders the Commission to bear its own costs, including those
      incurred in the interlocutory proceedings.                           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
(1) OJ C 55 of 8.3.2003.                                                   European Communities on 8 October 2003 by Deutsche Post
                                                                           AG, Bonn (Germany) and Securicor Omega Express Limited,
                                                                           Sutton (United Kingdom), represented by T. Lübbig, lawyer.


title: Case T-401/17: Action brought on 27 June 2017 — Tengelmann Warenhandelsgesellschaft v EUIPO — C & C IP (T)

text:
               14.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/34

         Action brought on 27 June 2017 — Tengelmann Warenhandelsgesellschaft v EUIPO — C & C IP (T)
   (Case T-401/17)
   (2017/C 269/46)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Tengelmann Warenhandelsgesellschaft KG (Mülheim an der Ruhr, Germany) (represented by: H. Prange, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: C & C IP Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘T’ — Application for registration No 11 623 022

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 April 2017 in Case R 502/2015-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the contested decision and amend it to the effect that the opposition is rejected in its entirety;

               —

               order the defendant and, as the case may be, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs of the appeal proceedings.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case C-101/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arbeidsrechtbank Gent by order of that Court of 17 February 2004 in the case of Roger Noteboom against Rijksdienst voor Pensionen

text:
               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/29

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arbeidsrechtbank Gent by order of that Court of 17 February 2004 in the case of Roger Noteboom against Rijksdienst voor Pensionen
   (Case C-101/04)
   (2004/C 94/66)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Arbeidsrechtbank Gent (Ghent Labour Court) of 17 February 2004, received at the Court Registry on 26 February 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Roger Noteboom against Rijksdienst voor Pensionen on the following questions:

               1.

               Does holiday pay within the meaning of Article 22 of Royal Decree No 50 of 24 October 1967 and Article 56 of the Royal Decree of 21 December 1967 fall within the scope ratione materiae of Regulation No 1408/71 (1) and more specifically does it constitute an ‘old-age benefit’ within the meaning of Article 4(1)(c) thereof?

               2.

               Are Articles 45(1) and (6) of Regulation No 1408/71 to be interpreted as meaning that the RVP must, as the competent institution, take account of insurance periods completed in another Member State in determining entitlement to holiday pay?

               3.

               If the second question is answered in the negative, does the requirement in Article 71(1)(a)(ii) of Regulation No 1408/71 that the benefit is to be determined in accordance with the provisions of the legislation of the Member State in whose territory the frontier worker resides ‘as though he had been subject to that legislation while last employed’ apply only to unemployment benefit or also to other benefits such as, in particular, holiday pay as referred to in Article 22 of Royal Decree No 50 of 24 October 1967 and Article 56 of the Royal Decree of 21 December 1967?

      (1)  English special edition: Series I Chapter 1971(II) P. 0416


title: Case T-352/05: Action brought on  16 September 2005  — Hellenic Republic v Commission

text:
               26.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/31

         Action brought on 16 September 2005 — Hellenic Republic v Commission
   (Case T-352/05)
   (2005/C 296/67)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Hellenic Republic (represented by: G. Kanellopoulos and S. Kharitaki)

      Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:

               —

               annul or amend the contested decision of the Commission of 20 July 2005 refusing the request for Community financing of certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), Guarantee Section, notified under No C(2005) 2756 and published as Decision 2005/579/EC (1)

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By the contested decision the Commission, in clearing the accounts under Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 (2), disallowed from Community financing various expenditure incurred by the Hellenic Republic in the public storage, fruit and vegetables, tobacco and livestock premiums sectors.
   The applicant seeks annulment of that decision, maintaining in principle that the entire clearance of accounts procedure is invalid because Article 7 of Regulation No 1258/1999 (3), in conjunction with Article 8 of Regulation No 1663/1995 (4), was infringed by reason of the fact that the consultation and bilateral contacts between the applicant and the Commission did not include the specific evaluation of the expenditure to be refused, while in addition the expenditure excluded was effected prior to the 24 months preceding the Commission's written communication. According to the applicant, the period of 24 months commences much later than the Commission considers.
   As regards the correction in the public storage sector, the applicant considers that the Commission's corrections are based on a misinterpretation and misapplication of Regulations Nos 1258/1999, 296/1996 (5) and 2040/2000 (6), misconstruing the guidelines in Commission document VI/5330/97/23.12.97, and were made on the basis of a mistaken assessment of the facts, with vague or insufficient reasoning, going beyond the bounds of the Commission's discretion and contravening the principle of proportionality.
   As regards the correction in the potato-growing and vineyard sectors, the applicant disputes the Commission's assessment as regards the facts, citing insufficient and contradictory reasoning, and infringement of the principle of proportionality. It considers, moreover, that the correction imposed should be limited to 2 % and that the correction should not in any event include the Department of the Dodecanese, where there is a land registry and consequently in that department especially it cannot be considered that there is any difficulty as regards on-the-spot checks.
   In the fruit and vegetables sector, the applicant considers that the Commission was wrong not to regard as justified the late payment in a case in which the Greek authorities investigated the compatibility of the payment in question under national and Community law. The applicant relies additionally on the same pleas as were set out above concerning the storage sector.
   With regard to tobacco, the applicant alleges misinterpretation and misapplication of the Community provisions, error as to the facts, insufficient statement of reasons and infringement of the guidance in documents VI 5330/97 and AGRI 17933/2000 concerning the requirement to carry out cross-checks with the data of a fully-functioning integrated administration and control system provided for by Regulation No 2848/98 (7), the carrying out of on-the-spot checks, of payments by cheque and supplementary and other checks.
   Lastly, as regards the correction in the livestock sector (goat and sheepmeat), the applicant disputes the Commission's assessment of the facts and considers that the reasons given are mistaken. It also claims that the imposition of a flat-rate correction of 10 % is unlawful, constitutes a misinterpretation and misapplication of the guidance in document AGRI/6145/2000 and is disproportionate to the gravity of the deficiencies.

      (1)  OJ L 199 of 29.07.2005, p. 84.

      (2)  Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 of the Council of 21 April 1970 on the financing of the common agricultural policy, OJ English Special Edition 1970(I), p 218.

      (3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the financing of the common agricultural policy, OJ L 160 of 26.06.1999, p. 103.

      (4)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1663/95 of 7 July 1995 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 regarding the procedure for the clearance of the accounts of the EAGGF Guarantee Section, OJ L 158 of 08.07.1995, p. 6.

      (5)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 296/96 of 16 February 1996 on data to be forwarded by the Member States and the monthly booking of expenditure financed under the Guarantee Section of the Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 2776/88, OJ 1996 L 39, p. 5.

      (6)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2040/2000 of 26 September 2000 on budgetary discipline, OJ 2000 L 244, p. 27.

      (7)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2848/98 of 22 December 1998 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2075/92 as regards the premium scheme, production quotas and the specific aid to be granted to producer groups in the raw tobacco sector, OJ 1998 L 358, p. 17.


title: Case F-23/16: Action brought on 2 May 2016 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               11.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 251/51

         Action brought on 2 May 2016 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-23/16)
   (2016/C 251/59)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application seeking that the applicant be awarded compensation in respect of the material harm he claims to have incurred due to the alleged delay in the organisation of the 2013 reclassification procedure.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               order the defendant to pay the applicant compensation to make good the loss he has suffered, in its entirety, due to the delay in the organisation of the 2013 reclassification procedure;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.


C 7/18                  EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   11.1.2003
Since the United Kingdom has not informed the Commission                         Removal from the register of Case C-367/01 ( 1)
of the provisions adopted to comply fully with the Directive,
and since the Commission is in possession of no other                                              (2003/C 7/35)
information enabling it to conclude that the United Kingdom
has adopted the necessary provisions, it is compelled to assume
that the United Kingdom has not yet adopted such provisions              By order of 16 October 2002 the President of the Court of
and has thus failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive.       Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                         from the register of Case C-367/01: Commission of the
( 1) OJ 1997 L 73, p. 5                                                  European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
                                                                         (1 ) OJ C 331 of 24.11.2001.
        Removal from the register of Case C-374/00 ( 1)
                           (2003/C 7/33)                                         Removal from the register of Case C-371/01 ( 1)
                                                                                (2003/C 7/36)
By order of 23 October 2002 the President of the Sixth
Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Communities
ordered the removal from the register of Case C-374/00:                  By order of 23 October 2002 the President of the Third
Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic                        Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Communities
Republic.                                                                ordered the removal from the register of Case C-371/01:
                                                                         Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic
                                                                         Republic.
( 1) OJ C 335 of 25.11.2000.
                                                                         (1 ) OJ C 348 of 08.12.2001.
      Removal from the register of Case C-448/00 P (1)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-158/02 ( 1)
                           (2003/C 7/34)
                                                                                (2003/C 7/37)
By order of 4 November 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                  By order of 25 October 2002 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-448/00 P: Commission of the                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
European Communities v BP Chemicals Ltd.                                 from the register of Case C-158/02 (Referral for a preliminary
                                                                         ruling by the Tribunale di Roma): Lidia Marcaletti v Istituto
                                                                         nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS).
( 1) OJ C 28 of 27.01.2001.
                                                                         (1 ) OJ C 144 of 15.06.2002.