title: Case T-341/08: Order of the General Court of 30 June 2011 — Hess Group v OHIM — Coloma Navarro (COLOMÉ) (Community trade mark — Application for a declaration of invalidity — Agreement and withdrawal of application — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               26.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/31

         Order of the General Court of 30 June 2011 — Hess Group v OHIM — Coloma Navarro (COLOMÉ)
   (Case T-341/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for a declaration of invalidity - Agreement and withdrawal of application - No need to adjudicate)
   2011/C 347/51
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Hess Group AG (Berne, Switzerland) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri and A. Castán Pérez-Gómez, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: O. Mondéjar Ortuño, agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: José Félix Coloma Navarro (Alvarado, Spain) (represented by: A. Fernández Lerroux, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 May 2008 (Case R 1030/2007-1) in invalidity proceedings between José Félix Coloma Navarro and Hess Group AG.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               The applicant and the intervener shall bear their own costs and shall each pay one half of the defendant’s costs.

      (1)  OJ C 272, 25.10.2008.


title: Case T-331/14: Judgment of the General Court of 28 January 2016 — Azarov v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in Ukraine — Freezing of funds — List of persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources — Inclusion of the applicant’s name — Proof that inclusion on the list is justified)

text:
               14.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/34

         Judgment of the General Court of 28 January 2016 — Azarov v Council
   (Case T-331/14) (1)

   ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in Ukraine - Freezing of funds - List of persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources - Inclusion of the applicant’s name - Proof that inclusion on the list is justified))
   (2016/C 098/45)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Mykola Yanovych Azarov (Kiev, Ukraine) (represented by: G. Lansky and A. Egger, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix and F. Naert, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent) and European Commission (represented by: S. Bartelt, D. Gauci and T. Scharf, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment, first, of Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 66, p. 26) and of Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 66, p. 1) and, secondly, of Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/143 of 29 January 2015 amending Decision 2014/119 (OJ 2015 L 24, p. 16) and of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/138 of 29 January 2015 amending Regulation No 208/2014 (OJ 2015 L 24, p. 1), in so far as they concern the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine and Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, in so far as they concern Mr Mykola Yanovych Azarov;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Azarov in relation to the claim for annulment made in the application;

               4.

               Orders Mr Azarov to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council in relation to the claim for annulment made in the statement modifying the form of order sought;

               5.

               Orders the Republic of Poland and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.


title: Case T-126/13: Action brought on 1 March 2013 — Direct Way and Direct Way Worldwide v Parliament

text:
               25.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 147/20

         Action brought on 1 March 2013 — Direct Way and Direct Way Worldwide v Parliament
   (Case T-126/13)
   2013/C 147/37
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Direct Way (Brussels, Belgium); and Direct Way Worldwide (Machelen, Belgium) (represented by: E. van Nuffel d’Heynsbroeck, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               declare the action admissible and well founded;

               —

               consequently,

                           —

                           annul:

                                       —

                                       the Parliament’s decision, of unknown date, to abandon the tendering procedure implemented on the ground that ‘the bids received in response to the tender were unacceptable in view of the award criteria, in particular the proposed prices, which are too high compared to the value set out in the contract notice’, brought to the attention of the Direct Way group by letter dated 3 September 2012;

                                       —

                                       the Parliament’s decision, of unknown date, to apply the negotiated procedure without publication for the purpose of awarding the contract, brought to the attention of the Direct Way group by the tendering procedure invitation communicated to it on 19 September 2012;

                                       —

                                       the Parliament’s decision, of unknown date, to award the contract to a competing tenderer, brought to the attention of the Direct Way group by e-mail of 21 December 2012 and confirmed by letter of 3 January 2013;

               —

               accordingly, declare void the contract concluded between the Parliament and the s.c.s. TMS Limousines;

               —

               order the Parliament to pay to the Direct Way group the provisional amount of EUR 199 500 per year as compensation for the loss sustained;

               —

               order the Parliament to pay the costs in their entirety, in accordance with Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.

               1.

               The first plea alleges infringement of Article 101 of the Financial Regulation (1), of Article 127(1)(a) of the Regulation implementing the Financial Regulation (2) and of the principle of equality, and a manifest error of assessment, as the Parliament awarded the contract by negotiated procedure at a price above that submitted by the applicants in the context of the initial invitation to tender.

               2.

               A second, alternative, plea alleges infringement of Article 127(1)(a) of the Regulation implementing the Financial Regulation and of the principle of equality, as the Parliament substantially amended the initial conditions of the contract (i) by awarding the contract at a price above that considered unacceptable in the initial invitation to tender (first part) and (ii) by lowering the estimate of the volume to be provided in relation to the volume set out in the initial conditions of the contract, thus affecting the assessment of the price of the negotiated bids (second part).

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 357, p. 1).


title: Judgment of the Court 12 March 2002 in Joined Cases C-27/00 and C-122/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the — High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Crown Office) (C-27/00), and — High Court (C-122/00)): The Queen v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, ex parte Omega Air Ltd (C-27/00) (Regulation (EC) No 925/1999 — Noise emissions of aeroplanes — Prohibition of re-engined aeroplanes with engines with a by-pass ratio of less than 3 — Validity)

text:
18.5.2002                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 118/9
1.    Dismisses the submissions of the United Kingdom of Great               and Wales (Queen’s Bench Division, Crown Office) (Case
      Britain and Northern Ireland as intervener;                            C-27/00) and the High Court (Ireland) (Case C-122/00) for
                                                                             preliminary rulings in the proceedings pending before those
                                                                             courts between The Queen and Secretary of State for the
2.    Declares that, by failing to obtain its adherence before 1 January     Environment, Transport and the Regions, ex parte Omega Air
      1995 to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary            Ltd (C-27/00), on the validity of Article 2(2) of Council
      and Artistic Works (Paris Act of 24 July 1971), Ireland has            Regulation (EC) No 925/1999 of 29 April 1999 on the
      failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 228(7) of the           registration and operation within the Community of certain
      EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 300(7) EC) in                 types of civil subsonic jet aeroplanes which have been modified
      conjunction with Article 5 of Protocol 28 to the Agreement on          and recertificated as meeting the standards of volume I, Part II,
      the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992;                              Chapter 3 of Annex 16 to the Convention on International
                                                                             Civil Aviation, third edition (July 1993) (OJ 1999 L 115, p. 1,
                                                                             and L 120, p. 47), the Court (), composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez
3.    Orders Ireland to pay the costs;                                       Iglesias, President, P. Jann, F. Macken, N. Colneric and S. von
                                                                             Bahr (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward,
                                                                             J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), J.N. Cunha Rodri-
4.    Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern                gues and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate
      Ireland to bear its own costs.                                         General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
                                                                             has given a judgment on 12 March 2002, in which it has
                                                                             ruled:
(1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.
                                                                             Consideration of the questions submitted has disclosed no factor such
                                                                             as to affect the validity of Article 2(2) of Council Regulation (EC)
                                                                             No 925/1999 of 29 April 1999 on the registration and operation
                                                                             within the Community of certain types of civil subsonic jet aeroplanes
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       which have been modified and recertificated as meeting the standards
                                                                             of volume I, Part II, Chapter 3 of Annex 16 to the Convention on
                                                                             International Civil Aviation, third edition (July 1993).
                            12 March 2002
in Joined Cases C-27/00 and C-122/00 (Reference for a
preliminary ruling from the — High Court of Justice
(England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Crown
Office) (C-27/00), and — High Court (C-122/00)): The
Queen v Secretary of State for the Environment, Trans-
port and the Regions, ex parte Omega Air Ltd (C-27/00) (1)
                                                                             (1) OJ C 102 of 8.4.2000.
(Regulation (EC) No 925/1999 — Noise emissions of
aeroplanes — Prohibition of re-engined aeroplanes with
    engines with a by-pass ratio of less than 3 — Validity)
                           (2002/C 118/12)
                   (Language of the case: English)
In Joined Cases C-27/00 and C-122/00: Reference to the Court
under Article 234 EC by the High Court of Justice of England


title: Case T-468/15: Order of the General Court of 14 September 2016 — Souruh v Council

text:
               7.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 410/34

         Order of the General Court of 14 September 2016 — Souruh v Council
   (Case T-468/15) (1)

   (2016/C 410/54)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 337, 12.10.2015.


title: Case T-390/11: Action brought on 21 July 2011 — Evonik Industries v OHIM — Bornemann (EVONIK)

text:
               10.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/57

         Action brought on 21 July 2011 — Evonik Industries v OHIM — Bornemann (EVONIK)
   (Case T-390/11)
   2011/C 269/124
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Evonik Industries AG (Essen, Germany) (represented by: J. Albrecht, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Johann Heinrich Bornemann GmbH — Geschäftsbereich Kunststofftechnik Obernkirchen (Obernkirchen, Germany)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the defendant's decision (of the Second Board of Appeal) of 19 April 2011 (Case R 1802/2010-2) in so far as it denies international mark No 918 426‘EVONIK’ protection within the European Union;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant.

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘EVONIK’ for goods and services in Classes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 16, 17, 19, 35, 37, 39, 40, 41 and 42 — International registration number 918 426.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Johann Heinrich Bornemann GmbH — Geschäftsbereich Kunststofftechnik Obernkirchen.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community word mark ‘EVO’ for goods and services in Classes 7, 37 and 42.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition partially upheld.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and Articles 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009 since, (i) there is no likelihood of confusion between the opposing marks, (ii) the Board of Appeal based its decision on grounds on which the applicant could not voice its opinion, and (iii) the Board of Appeal based its decision on arguments which were not raised by the opponent in the proceedings.


title: Case C-16/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Administratif de Lille (4ème Chambre) by judgment of that court of 6 January 2000 in the case of Cibo Participations S.A. against Directeur Régional des Impôts du Nord-Pas-de-Calais

text:
C 79/18                 EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     18.3.2000
According to the Commission, it cannot be stated that the                   — should a deduction be allowed by way of general
mere presence of vegetable fats changes the nature of the                       expenses?
product to the extent that the name ‘chocolate’ could create
confusion as to the essential nature of the product itself.
                                                                       (1) Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the
                                                                           harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
The requirement that the name of the product be changed (to                turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
its detriment) must be precluded inasmuch as it seriously                  basis of assessment (OJ L 145, p. 1).
prejudices recognition of the product as part of a category to
which it rightfully belongs. As such, it is a disproportionate
measure with regard to the objective pursued, namely con-
sumer information.
(1) OJ 1973 L 228, p. 23.                                              Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
                                                                       Asti — Ufficio del Giudice per le Indagini Preliminari, by
                                                                       order of 17 December 1999 in the criminal proceedings
                                                                                pending before it against Maurizio Perino
                                                                                (Case C-18/00)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Admin-                                        (2000/C 79/34)
istratif de Lille (4ème Chambre) by judgment of that court
of 6 January 2000 in the case of Cibo Participations S.A.              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
against Directeur Régional des Impôts du Nord-Pas-de-Ca-               European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Asti
                                 lais                                  (District Court, Asti) of 17 December 1999, received at the
                                                                       Court Registry on 20 January 2000, for a preliminary ruling
                           (Case C-16/00)                              in the criminal proceedings pending against Maurizio Perino
                                                                       on the following question:
                           (2000/C 79/33)
                                                                       Does Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (1)
                                                                       permit the storage of waste for submission, not only to the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 operations listed in points R1 to R12 of Annex IIB, but also to
European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal Adminis-              another, separate phase of storage, or does the directive require
tratif de Lille (4ème Chambre) (Administrative Court, Lille)           persons storing waste to deliver it solely to a person who
(Fourth Chamber) of 6 January 2000, received at the Court              carries out operations to recover the waste?
Registry on 19 January 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Cibo Participations S.A. against Directeur Régional des
Impôts du Nord-Pas-de-Calais on the following questions:               (1) Council Directive 91/156/EEC amending Directive 75/442/EEC
                                                                           on waste (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32).
1. What are the criteria for establishing ‘involvement’? Can it
     be inferred from the provision of paid services, or the
     running of a group of companies by its holding company,
     or de facto management which excludes the independence
     of the subsidiary, or some other factor?
2. Where there is ‘involvement’, does the receipt of dividends         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of
     remain outside the scope of value added tax for any reason        Session, Scotland, by request of that Court of 11 January
     other than economic activity, in that such receipts are not       2000, in the case of Booker Aquaculture Limited, trading
     the consideration for the supply of goods or services,            as Marine Harvest McConnell, against the Scottish Minis-
                                                                                ters
     — or, taking account of the fact that fees are incurred in
         connection with the acquisition of shares, the specific                                 (Case C-20/00)
         purpose of which is to enable direct participation in
         economic activity, do dividend receipts fall within the                                 (2000/C 79/35)
         scope of value added tax and, if so, are such receipts
         exempt under Article 13B(1)(d) of the Sixth Council           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
         Directive (1) or taxable?                                     European Communities by a request of the Court of Session,
                                                                       Scotland, of 11 January 2000, which was received at the Court
3. If the receipt of dividends remains outside the scope of            Registry on 24 January 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the
     value added tax, what are the implications for deduction:         case of Booker Aquaculture Limited, trading as Marine Harvest
                                                                       McConnell, against the Scottish Ministers, on the following
     — does no right remain to deduct tax on fees incurred in          questions:
         connection with the acquisition of shares, on the
         ground that those fees do not relate to a taxable             1. Where, in implement of an obligation under Directive
         transaction, or                                                    93/53/EEC (1) to provide control measures for an outbreak


title: Case C-260/04: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 September 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services — Public service concessions — Renewal of 329 horse-race betting licences without inviting competing bids — Requirements of publication and transparency)

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/4

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 September 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-260/04) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services - Public service concessions - Renewal of 329 horse-race betting licences without inviting competing bids - Requirements of publication and transparency)
   (2007/C 269/08)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: K. Wiedner, C. Cattabriga and L. Visaggio, Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: I.M. Braguglia, Agent, and G. De Bellis, Lawyer)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: J. Molde, Agent), Kingdom of Spain (represented by: F. Díez Moreno, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of the principle of transparency and the requirement to advertise pursuant to Article 43 et seq. EC and Article 49 et seq. EC — Renewal of 329 horse-racing betting licences without inviting competing bids.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1)

               Declares that, by renewing 329 licences for horse-race betting operations without inviting any competing bids, the Italian Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 43 and 49 EC and, in particular, infringed the general principle of transparency and the obligation to ensure a sufficient degree of advertising.

               2)

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 217, 28.8.2004.


title: Case T-211/12: Order of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — Hübner v OHIM — Silesia Gerhard Hanke (Original silecia Kieselsäure-Gel) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of opposition — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               16.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 336/23

         Order of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — Hübner v OHIM — Silesia Gerhard Hanke (Original silecia Kieselsäure-Gel)
   (Case T-211/12) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of opposition - No need to adjudicate)
   2013/C 336/49
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Anton Hübner GmBH & Co KG (Ehrenkirchen, Germany) (represented: initially by A. Kirchgäßner and subsequently by R. Kunz-Hallstein, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Silesia Gerhard Hanke GmBH & Co KG (Norf, Germany) (represented by: H.-J. Krieger, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 March 2012 (Case R 351/2011-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Silesia Gerhard Hanke GmBH & Co KG and Anton Hübner GmBH & Co KG.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               The applicant and the intervener are ordered to bear their own costs and, each of them, to bear half of the defendant’s costs.

      (1)  OJ C 209, 14.7.2012.


title: Case C-398/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Ireland made on 27 July 2011 — Thomas Hogan, Jonh Burns, John Dooley, Alfred Ryan, Michael Cunningham, Michael Dooley, Denis Hayes, Marion Walsh, Joan Power, Walter Walsh v Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Attorney General

text:
               1.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 290/5

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Ireland made on 27 July 2011 — Thomas Hogan, Jonh Burns, John Dooley, Alfred Ryan, Michael Cunningham, Michael Dooley, Denis Hayes, Marion Walsh, Joan Power, Walter Walsh v Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Attorney General
   (Case C-398/11)
   2011/C 290/07
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Ireland

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Thomas Hogan, Jonh Burns, John Dooley, Alfred Ryan, Michael Cunningham, Michael Dooley, Denis Hayes, Marion Walsh, Joan Power, Walter Walsh

      Defendants: Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Attorney General

      Questions referred

               1.

               Whether Directive 2008/94/EC (1) applies to the Plaintiffs' situation having regard to Article 1(1) of the Directive and to the fact that the loss of the pension benefits claimed by the Plaintiffs are not, in Irish law, a debt against their employer which would be recognised in the receivership or any winding up of the Plaintiffs' employer, and which does not otherwise provide a legal basis for a claim against their employer in the circumstances of this case.

               2.

               Whether, in assessing whether or not the State has complied with its obligations under Article 8, the national Court is entitled to take into account the State contributory pension which will be received by the Plaintiffs (receipt of which is not affected by a link with the occupational pension scheme) and to compare (a) the total of the State pension and the value of the pension the Plaintiffs will or are likely to
                     actually
                   receive from the relevant occupational pension scheme with (b) the total of the State contributory pension and the value of the accrued pension benefits of each of the Plaintiffs at the date of winding up of the scheme where the State pension was taken into account in designing the level of pension benefit claimed by the Plaintiffs?

               3.

               If the answer to question 2 is yes, whether any of the amounts likely to be actually received by the Plaintiffs amount to compliance by the State with its obligations under Article 8?

               4.

               Whether, in order for Article 8 of the Directive to apply, it is necessary to establish any causal link between the Plaintiffs' loss of their pension benefits and the insolvency of their employer apart from the facts that (i) the pension scheme is under-funded as of the date of the employer's insolvency and (ii) the employer's insolvency means that the employer does not have the resources to contribute sufficient money to the pension scheme to enable the members' pension benefits to be satisfied in full (the employer being under no obligation to do so once the scheme is wound up).

               5.

               Whether the measures adopted by Ireland as referred to above fulfil the obligations imposed by the Directive having regard to the social, commercial and economic factors considered by Ireland in the review of pension protection following the decision in Robins (as set out in the Witness Statement of Orlaigh Quinn) and, in particular, having regard to the ‘need for balanced economic and social development in the Community’ referred to in Recital 3 of the Directive?

               6.

               Whether the economic situation (as set out in the Witness Statements of Colm McCarthy, Phillip Lane and Kevin Cardiff) constitutes a sufficiently exceptional situation to justify a lower level of protection of the Plaintiffs' interests than might otherwise have been required and if so, what is that lower level of protection?

               7.

               Assuming the answer to question 2 is no, whether the fact that the measures taken by the State subsequent to the Robins case have not brought about the result that the Plaintiffs would receive in excess of 49 % of the value of their accrued pension benefits under their occupational pension scheme is in itself a serious breach of the State's obligations such as to entitle the Plaintiffs to damages (i.e. without separately showing that the State's actions subsequent to the Robins judgment amounted to a grave and manifest disregard of the State's obligations under Article 8 of the Directive).

      (1)  Directive 2008/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer
   OJ L 283, p. 36


title: Case T-265/05: Action brought on 8 July 2005 by Johan Maes against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               17.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 229/29

         Action brought on 8 July 2005 by Johan Maes against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-265/05)
   (2005/C 229/62)
   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 8 July 2005 by Johan Maes, resident in Sterrebeek-Zaventem (Belgium), represented Lucas Vogel, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision adopted by the Authority Responsible for Concluding Contracts of Employment on 21 March 2005 by which it dismissed the applicant's application of 3 December 2004, reclassified as a claim, against the decision fixing the grade and remuneration determined for the applicant in his capacity as contract staff under the terms of the contract which entered into effect on 16 September 2004;

               —

               in so far as necessary, annul also the original decision, by which the grade and remuneration were fixed for the applicant in his capacity as contract staff under the terms of the contract which entered into effect on 16 September 2004;

               —

               order the defendant to pay EUR 25 000 by way of damages, subject to an increase or decrease or further specifications;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and main arguments are identical to those put forward in Case T-253/05 Fernandez Tunon v Commission.


title: Case C-254/03 P: Appeal brought on 13 June 2003 by Eduardo Vieira SA against the judgment delivered on 3 April 2003 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-126/01 between Eduardo Vieira SA and Commission of the European Communities

text:
2.8.2003               EN                      Official Journal of the European Union                                        C 184/27
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            fisheries sector (EC/Argentina Agreement) so far as
                                                                           concerns the legal basis of the contested decision.
The Portuguese authorities failed to take any measures to                  According to the Court of First Instance, the Commission
ensure that, within various parameters, water intended for                 was competent to take Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 and
human consumption met the requirements laid down in                        in particular on Article 24 thereof as the legal basis for
Annex I to Directive 80/778/EEC and, therefore, the Portuguese             the decision to reduce financial aid. However, the EC/
Republic has failed to fulfil, within the prescribed period, its           Argentina Agreement lays down a specific legal system
obligations under Article 7(6) thereof. The fact that the Portu-           for joint enterprises established within its framework, so
guese Republic has or is about to take steps or measures                   that provisions of general application are not applicable
which, according to the Portuguese authorities, have as their              where the Agreement makes no express reference thereto;
main objective to reach the quality levels for water intended              such reference is made only in relation to the submission
for human consumption laid down by Community law does                      of projects for approval and requests and procedure for
not justify that Member State having failed to fulfil its obliga-          payment.
tions.
                                                                       —   Infringement of the EC/Argentina Agreement so far as
                                                                           concerns the role played by the Joint Committee and the
                                                                           Argentinian authorities. The Court of First Instance
                                                                           considers that the Commission was not required to
                                                                           consult either the Joint Committee or the Argentinian
Appeal brought on 13 June 2003 by Eduardo Vieira SA                        authority before reducing financial aid. Thus it disregards
against the judgment delivered on 3 April 2003 by the                      the institutional structure established by the Agreement.
Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-126/01 between
Eduardo Vieira SA and Commission of the European
                            Communities                                —   Infringement of the EC/Argentina Agreement so far as
                                                                           concerns application of the procedure provided for by
                         (Case C-254/03 P)                                 Article 44 of Regulation (EEC) No 4028/86, repealed
                                                                           from 1 January 1994 and thus inapplicable in the present
                                                                           case, to the procedure for reducing financial aid. Accord-
                          (2003/C 184/48)                                  ingly, there was no legal basis for the consultation with
                                                                           the Standing Committee for the Fishing Industry.
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 3 April 2003 by
the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-126/01 between Eduardo                  —   Infringement of the EC/Argentina Agreement so far as
Vieira SA and Commission of the European Communities was                   concerns application of Regulation (EC) No 3699/93
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Commu-                 when assessing the amount of the reduction of the
nities on 13 June 2003 by Eduardo Vieira S.A., represented by              financial assistance. The Commission ought to have
Ramón García-Gallardo and Mª Dolores Domínguez Pérez,                      applied a reduction based on that regulation but only
with an address for service in Luxembourg.                                 within the framework of the EC/Argentina Agreement and
                                                                           having regard to its scale of assessment. The application
                                                                           of the scale of assessment established in Regulation
The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           No 3699/93 entails an additional sanction on the bene-
                                                                           ficiary.
1.    declare the present appeal admissible;
2.    set aside the judgment delivered on 3 April 2003 by the
      Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the              —   Infringement of Community law as regards force majeure.
      European Communities in Case T-126/01 between                        The Court of First Instance disregards the obligation on
      Eduardo Vieira SA and Commission of the European                     the Commission so far as concerns the legal classification
      Communities;                                                         of certain events as force majeure.
3.    order the European Commission to pay the entire costs of
      proceedings before the Court of Justice as well as those
      incurred at first instance.                                      —   Infringement of the EC/Argentina Agreement so far as
                                                                           concerns the need to seek Commission approval before
                                                                           leaving Argentinian fishing waters. The Court of First
                                                                           Instance considers that the appellant was required to
                                                                           inform the Commission of difficulties in carrying out the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            project and could not leave the Argentinian exclusive
                                                                           economic zone without the prior approval of the
The appellant claims that the Court of First Instance infringed            Commission. Nevertheless, if an ‘international component’
Community law. The appellant relies on six pleas in law:                   is acknowledged to exist, authorisation by the Argentinian
                                                                           authority should suffice.
—     Infringement of the Agreement between the Community
      and the Argentinian Republic on relations in the sea


title: Case C-335/07: Action brought on 18 July 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland

text:
               6.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/9

         Action brought on 18 July 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland
   (Case C-335/07)
   (2007/C 235/15)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: I. Koskinen, M. Patakia and S. Pardo Quintillán, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Finland
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to require that urban waste water entering collecting systems from all agglomerations of more than 10 000 p.e be subject to more stringent treatment, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(2), (3) and (5) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment (1);

               —

               order the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   All aquatic environments in Finland must be regarded as ‘sensitive areas’ within the meaning of Directive 91/271/EEC. It follows that the obligation to ensure that all urban waste waters entering collecting systems which originate from agglomerations of more than 10 000 p.e are to be subject to more stringent treatment is applicable to all Finnish territory. Nitrogen is an important factor in eutrophication in parts of Selkämeri and a dominant factor in Saaristomeri and the Gulf of Finland. In the springtime, the capacity to treat nitrogen is reduced in the central area of the Baltic Sea. The eutrophication in those areas is indisputable. A reduction in the nitrogen and phosphorus loads would help to prevent phytoplankton bloom in the spring and summer. The Republic of Finland has infringed Article 5(2), (3) and (5) of Directive 91/271/EEC in that it failed to ensure that all nitrogen was removed from all urban waste water entering collection systems and which originate from agglomerations of more than 10 000 p.e.

      (1)  OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of  10 January 2006  in Case C-178/03: Commission of the European Communities v European Parliament and Council of the European Union (Action for annulment — Regulation (EC) No 304/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of  28 January 2003  concerning the export and import of dangerous chemicals — Choice of legal basis — Articles 133 EC and 175 EC)

text:
               25.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/3

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 10 January 2006
   in Case C-178/03: Commission of the European Communities v European Parliament and Council of the European Union (1)

   (Action for annulment - Regulation (EC) No 304/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 concerning the export and import of dangerous chemicals - Choice of legal basis - Articles 133 EC and 175 EC)
   (2006/C 48/05)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case C-178/03, action for annulment under Article 230 EC, brought on 24 April 2003, Commission of the European Communities (Agent: G.zur Hausen, L. Strom van Lier and E. Righini) v European Parliament (Agents: C. Pennera and M. Moore and K. Bradley) and Council of the European Union (Agents: B. Hoff-Nielsen and M. Sims-Robertson, and K. Michoel),.supported by:French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues, F. Alabrune and E. Puisais), Republic of Finland (Agent: T. Pynnä,), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent: R. Caudwell, and A. Dashwood) — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, J. Makarczyk, C. Gulmann, P. Kūris and J. Klučka, Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 10 January 2006, in which it:

               1.

               Annuls Regulation (EC) No 304/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 concerning the export and import of dangerous chemicals;

               2.

               Maintains the effects of that regulation until the adoption, within a reasonable period, of a new regulation founded on appropriate legal bases;

               3.

               Orders the Commission of European Communities, the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to bear their own costs;

               4.

               Orders the French Republic, the Republic of Finland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 146 of 21.06.2003.


title: Action brought on 19 August 1997 by Luc Verheyden against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-240/97)

text:
C 331 /22          1 EN |                Official Journal of the European Communities                                    1 . 11 . 97
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                    — annul the defendant's decisions :
The applicant claims that there has been an infringement
of Article 46 of the Staff Regulations, the purpose of                  — of 31 October 1996, consisting of a note prepared
which is to ensure the greatest possible continuity in the                   by J. P. Contzen, Director-General of the Joint
development of an official 's career. In his submission, the                 Research Centre, Ispra, refusing, first, to allow the
remuneration for Grade B 5 , Step 4 is lower than that for                   applicant to apply to the appeal assessor on the
Grade C 3 , Step 8 . He will therefore continue to be                        ground that the matter had been finally concluded
remunerated as an official of Grade C 3 , Step 8 until                       by the decision of 30 November 1995 awarding
promoted to Grade B 4, which does not represent                              the applicant the sum of BFR 90 000 in respect of
continuity in the development of his remuneration.                           non-material damage resulting from the absence
                                                                             and/or delay in the drawing up of his staff reports
                                                                             and, second, refusing the promotion of the
                                                                             applicant to grade A4 sought in point 2 of his
Moreover, the applicant does not enjoy financial                             request of 28 August 1996,
advantages, like officials who are not in the last step in
their grade .
                                                                        — implicitly rejecting the applicant's complaint
                                                                             against those refusals, which was submitted on
                                                                             20 January 1997 and registered on that date,
When the applicant took up his duties in 1982, in Grade
C 4, he was awarded additional seniority of 48 months in
accordance with Article 42 of the Staff Regulations. An             — order the defendant to pay compensation of BFR
                                                                         1 000 000 for the combined material and non-material
official appointed at the same time as the applicant with
additional seniority of 24 months, who was promoted at                  damage suffered by him, the said sum to be increased
the same time and who had passed the same competition,                  or decreased as appropriate during the course of the
had been at Grade C 3, Step 7 before his appointment to                 proceedings, together with compensatory interest
Grade B. When the two were both appointed to Grade                      running from 28 August 1996 , the date of the
B 5 , that official received the same remuneration as the               applicant's request,
applicant, even though the latter had 24 months more
seniority.
                                                                    — in any event, order the Commission to pay all the
                                                                        costs .
Finally, the applicant requests his reclassification in the         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
light of the 'Alexopoulou' judgment.
                                                                    The applicant pleads, first, infringement of the Staff
                                                                    Regulations, in particular Articles 9 ( 5 ), 26 and 43
                                                                    thereof, and breach of general principles of law, including
                                                                    in particular the principle of equality, which requires the
                                                                    administration to have regard for the welfare and interests
                                                                    of officials, and the principle that all administrative
                                                                    decisions   must   be   based  on  a   lawful   and    relevant
Action brought on 19 August 1997 by Luc Verheyden
   against the Commission of the European Communities               statement of reasons. According to the applicant, the
                                                                    appointing authority was wrong to rely on the previous
                       ( Case T-240/97 )                            award of compensation for the absence and/or delay in the
                                                                    drawing up of a staff report as a ground for refusing to
                         ( 97/C 331/45 )                            allow the applicant to apply for revision of his staff report
                                                                    on appeal ( such revision being concerned with the
                                                                    contents of that report, which was drawn up after
                                                                    adoption of the decision awarding compensation), and in
               (Language of the case: French)                       so doing it infringed the rules and principles relied on in
                                                                    this plea .
An action against the Commission of the European                    The second plea alleges infringement of the second
Communities was brought before the Court of First                   paragraph of Article 25 and of Articles 44 and 45 of the
Instance of the European Communities on 19 August                   Staff Regulations and failure to observe general principles
1997 by Luc Verheyden, residing at Angera ( Italy),                 of law such as the principles of equality and of the
represented by Eric Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an          protection of legitimate expectations. The applicant
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                complains that the defendant infringed the rules and
Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim.                            principles referred to in this plea by refusing to promote
 ---pagebreak--- 1 . 11 . 97          EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 331 /23
him when he was clearly eligible for promotion, and that           that, in view of the doubt subsisting at the end of the
he has suffered a significant setback in his career, no            investigation procedure, the decision which was adopted is
justification for which has been provided by the                   disproportionate to the conduct complained of, having
appointing authority.                                              regard in particular to the mitigating circumstances noted
                                                                   by the disciplinary authority.
Action brought on 22 August 1997 by Benedetto
         D'Agostino against the European Parliament                Action brought on 26 August 1997 by Catherine
                       ( Case T-242/97)                            Metdepenningen and others against the Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities
                         ( 97/C 331 /46
                                                                                (Case T-243/ 97)
                                                                                ( 97/C 331 /47 )
               (Language of the case: French)
An action against the European Parliament was brought                              (Language of the case: French)
before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 22 August 1997 by Benedetto
D'Agostino, residing in Brussels, represented by Jean-Noel         An action against the Commission of the European
Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of the                 Communities was brought before the Court of First
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at         Instance of the European Communities on 23 June 1997
the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .         by Catherine Metdepenningen, Jerome Poussielgue and
                                                                   Jiirgen Wettig, all residing in Brussels, represented by
                                                                   Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
The applicant claims that the Court should:                        service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
                                                                   Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .
— annul the decision of 28 October 1996 downgrading
     the applicant from grade CI , step 4, to grade C5,            The applicants claim that the Court should:
     step 1 ,
                                                                   — annul the Commission's decisions rejecting the
— order the defendant to pay the costs.                                 requests of the three applicants that they be allowed to
                                                                        benefit from possible extension of their contracts as
                                                                        members of the temporary staff, up to a total of five
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                        years ,
The applicant maintains, first, that, by allowing an
unreasonable period to elapse between the various steps in         — declare      the      Commission     decision adopted      on
the proceedings against him, without there being any                    13 November 1996 unlawful in so far as it limits all
justification whatever for the length of time taken to                  temporary staff contracts falling under Article 2 ( a ) of
conclude those proceedings, the defendant has infringed                 the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants to a
the first paragraph of Article 7 of Annex IX to the Staff               maximum duration of three years, with a possibility of
Regulations of officials . The applicant further pleads                 extension for a maximum of one year,
infringement of the right to a fair hearing, in that the
contested decision is based on documents which were not
communicated to him .                                              — order the Commission to pay the costs.
The applicant also maintains that the decision in issue is         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
vitiated by a manifest error of assessment and by the
absence of a sufficient statement of reasons, and that it
was adopted in breach of the principle of proportionality.         The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
He states that the contested penalty was imposed on the            Case T-185/97 Godts v. Commission ( ! ).
basis of mere assertions which were not proven and which
were, in some cases, formally contested by the parties
concerned, and that the numerous inconsistencies                   (') OJ C252 , 16 . 8 . 1997, p . 37 .
throughout the whole of the case are such as to make it
impossible to establish the truth of the facts alleged
against him. Consequently, and in addition, he considers


title: Case T-90/16: Judgment of the General Court of 4 July 2017 — Murphy v EUIPO — Nike Innovate (Electronic wristband) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing an electronic wristband — Prior Community design — Ground for invalidity — Individual character — Different overall impression — Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Obligation to state reasons — Article 62 of Regulation No 6/2002)

text:
               21.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 277/39

         Judgment of the General Court of 4 July 2017 — Murphy v EUIPO — Nike Innovate (Electronic wristband)
   (Case T-90/16) (1)

   ((Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing an electronic wristband - Prior Community design - Ground for invalidity - Individual character - Different overall impression - Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 62 of Regulation No 6/2002))
   (2017/C 277/58)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Thomas Murphy (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: N. Travers, SC, J. Gormley, Barrister, and M. O’Connor, Solicitor)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Nike Innovate CV (Beaverton, Oregon, United States) (represented by: C. Spintig, S. Pietzcker and M. Prasse, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 November 2015 (Case R 736/2014–3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Mr Murphy and Nike Innovate.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Thomas Murphy to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 156, 2.5.2016.


title: Case C-11/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Consiglio di Stato (Sixth Chamber) by order of that Court of 11 November 2003 in the case of Spa Fratelli Martini & C. Martini and Cargill srl against Ministero per le Politiche Agricole e Forestali, Ministero della Salute, and Ministero delle Attività Produttive

text:
C 59/18                 EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                           6.3.2004
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Consiglio                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Consiglio
di Stato (Sixth Chamber) by order of that Court of                         di Stato (Sixth Chamber) by order of that Court of
11 November 2003 in the case of Spa Fratelli Martini &                     11 November 2003 in the case of Ferrari Mangimi srl and
C. Martini and Cargill srl against Ministero per le Politiche              Associazione nazionale produttori alimenti zootecnici
Agricole e Forestali, Ministero della Salute, and Ministero                ASSALZOO against Ministero per le Politiche Agricole e
                     delle Attività Produttive                             Forestali, Ministero della Salute, and Ministero delle
                                                                                Attività Produttive
                          (Case C-11/04)
                          (2004/C 59/29)                                                             (Case C-12/04)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                               (2004/C 59/30)
European Communities by order of the Consiglio di Stato
(Sixth Chamber) (Council of State, Judicial Division, Sixth
Chamber) of 11 November 2003, received at the Court
Registry on 15 January 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Spa Fratelli Martini & C. Martini and Cargill srl against
Ministero per le Politiche Agricole e Forestali, Ministero della
Salute, and Ministero delle Attività Produttive on the following
questions:
                                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
1.    Must Article 152(4)(b) EC be interpreted as being the                European Communities by order of the Consiglio di Stato
      correct legal basis for the adoption of measures on                  (Sixth Chamber) (Council of State, Judicial Division, Sixth
      labelling, contained in Directive 2002/2/EC, where they              Chamber) of 11 November 2003, received at the Court
      refer to the labelling of vegetable feedingstuffs?                   Registry on 15 January 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                           case of Ferrari Mangimi srl and Associazione nazionale
                                                                           produttori alimenti zootecnici ASSALZOO against Ministero
2.    In so far as it imposes an obligation to indicate the precise        per le Politiche Agricole e Forestali, Ministero della Salute, and
      feed materials contained in compound feedingstuffs,                  Ministero delle Attività Produttive on the following questions:
      which applies even to vegetable-based feedingstuffs, is
      Directive 2002/2/EC (1) justified on the basis of the
      precautionary principle in the absence of a risk assess-
      ment, based on scientific studies, which requires that               1.    Must Article 152(4)(b) EC be interpreted as being the
      precautionary measure on the basis of a possible corre-                    correct legal basis for the adoption of measures on
      lation between the quantity of feed materials used and                     labelling, contained in Directive 2002/2/EC (1), where
      the risk of the diseases to be prevented? And is that                      they refer to the labelling of vegetable feedingstuffs?
      directive nevertheless justified in the light of the principle
      of proportionality, in so far as the obligations on the part
      of the feedingstuffs industry to disclose information to
      the public authorities, which are required to maintain               2.    In so far as it imposes an obligation to indicate the precise
      business secrecy, and are competent to monitor health                      feed materials contained in compound feedingstuffs,
      protection, are not sufficiently directed to the attainment                which applies even to vegetable-based feedingstuffs, is
      of the public health objectives supposed to be the purpose                 Directive 2002/2/EC justified on the basis of the pre-
      of the measure, instead imposing general rules requiring                   cautionary principle in the absence of a risk assessment,
      the indication of the percentage quantities of feed                        based on scientific studies, which requires that pre-
      materials used on the labels of vegetable-based feeding-                   cautionary measure on the basis of a possible correlation
      stuffs?                                                                    between the quantity of feed materials used and the risk
                                                                                of the diseases to be prevented? And is that directive
3.    In so far as it fails to respect the principle of pro-                     nevertheless justified in the light of the principle of
      portionality, does Directive 2002/2/EC conflict with the                   proportionality, in so far as the obligations on the part of
      fundamental right of property of the citizens of the                       the feedingstuffs industry to disclose information to
      Member States?                                                             the public authorities, which are required to maintain
                                                                                business secrecy, and are competent to monitor health
                                                                                protection, are not sufficiently directed to the attainment
                                                                                of the public health objectives supposed to be the purpose
(1) OJ L 63 of 6.03.2002, p. 23.                                                 of the measure, instead imposing general rules requiring
                                                                                the indication of the percentage quantities of feed
                                                                                materials used on the labels of vegetable-based feeding-
                                                                                stuffs?


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesgerichtshof by order of that court of 4 December 1997 in the case of Dieter Krombach v. André Bamberski (Case C-7/98)

text:
7.3.98                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 72/11
Chamber of the Tribunal de Grande Instance (Regional                     primary Community law (Articles 5, 6, 30 et seq., 59
Court), AngouleÃme, of 8 January 1998, which was                         et seq. and 85 et seq. of the EC Treaty and the
received at the Court Registry on 12 January 1998, for a                 general principle of equality)?
preliminary ruling in the case of SA Otor Godard v.
Directeur des Services Fiscaux de la Charente (Director of          (1) OJ L 202, 30.7.1997, p. 60.
the Charente Tax Office) on the following question:
Must Article 5 of the EC Treaty and the principle of legal
certainty be interpreted as meaning that they preclude
Article L 190(3) of the Code of Fiscal Procedures from
limiting an action for recovery of amounts unduly paid to           Reference      for    a     preliminary   ruling   by    the
the period subsequent to 1 January of the fourth year               Bundesgerichtshof by order of that court of 4 December
prior to that in which the judgment establishing non-                1997 in the case of Dieter Krombach v. AndreÂ Bamberski
conformity was established, where that judgment is a                                        (Case C-7/98)
judgment of the Court of Justice delivered following
failure by a Member State to transpose a directly                                            (98/C 72/20)
applicable provision of a directive affecting the State
budget.'
                                                                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                    European Communities by order of the Ninth Civil Senate
                                                                    of the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) of
                                                                    4 December 1997, received at the Court Registry on
                                                                    14 January 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                    Dieter Krombach v. AndreÂ Bamberski on the following
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                         questions:
Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart by order of that court of
17 December 1997 in the case of Arbeitsgemeinschaft                 1. May the provisions on jurisdiction form part of public
Deutscher Rundfunkanstalten (ARD) v. PRO Sieben                         policy within the meaning of Article 27(1) of the
Media AG, interveners: (1) SAT 1 Satellitenfernsehen                    Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and
        GmbH and (2) Kabel 1, K 1 Fernsehen GmbH                        the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and
                         (Case C-6/98)                                  Commercial Matters where the State of origin has
                                                                        based its jurisdiction as against a person domiciled in
                          (98/C 72/19)                                  another contracting State (first paragraph of Article 2
                                                                        of the Convention) solely on the nationality of the
                                                                        injured party (as in the second paragraph of Article 3
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        of the Convention in relation to France)?
European Communities by an order of the Fourth Civil
Senate of the Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart (Higher
Regional Court, Stuttgart) of 17 December 1997, which                   If Question 1 is answered in the negative:
was received at the Court Registry on 12 January 1998,
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Arbeitsgemeinschaft         2. May the court of the State in which enforcement is
Deutscher Rundfunkanstalten (ARD) v. PRO Sieben                         sought (first paragraph of Article 31 of the
Media AG, interveners: (1) SAT 1 Satellitenfernsehen                    Convention) take into account under public policy
GmbH and (2) Kabel 1, K 1 Fernsehen GmbH, on the                        within the meaning of Article 27(1) that the criminal
following questions:                                                    court of the State of origin did not allow the debtor to
                                                                        be defended by a lawyer in a civil-law procedure for
(a) Does Article 11(3) of Directive 97/36/EC of the                     damages instituted within the criminal proceedings
      European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June                 (Article II of the Protocol of 27 September 1968 on
      1997 amending Council Directive 89/552/EEC (the                  the interpretation of the Convention) because he, a
      Television Amendment Directive') (1) or the identical             resident of another Contracting State, was charged
      Article 11(3) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC of                  with an intentional offence and did not appear in
      3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain                     person?
      provisions laid down by law, regulation or
      administrative action in Member States concerning                 If Question 2 is also answered in the negative:
      the pursuit of television broadcasting activities (the
      Television Directive') prescribe the gross principle or       3. May the court of the State in which enforcement is
      the net principle?                                                sought take into account under public policy within
                                                                        the meaning of Article 27(1) of the Convention that
(b) On the assumption that Article 44(4) of the Dritter                 the court of the State of origin based its jurisdiction
      Staatsvertrag zur ¾nderung rundfunkrechtlicher                    solely on the nationality of the injured party (see
      Staatsverträge (Third Treaty amending Treaties on                 Question 1 above) and additionally prevented the
      Broadcasting Law, Annex B 33, p. 437 of the case-                 defendant from being legally represented (see
      file) prescribes the net principle, is that then                  Question 2 above)?
      compatible with Article 11(3) in conjunction with
      Article 3(1) of the Television Directive or with


title: Case T-113/02: Action brought on 11 April 2002 by Gustaaf Van Dyck against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 131/26               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        1.6.2002
Action brought on 12 April 2002 by Gustaaf Van Dyck                      Action brought on 11 April 2002 by Gustaaf Van Dyck
  against the Commission of the European Communities                       against the Commission of the European Communities
                          (Case T-112/02)
                                                                                (Case T-113/02)
                         (2002/C 131/48)
                                                                                (2002/C 131/49)
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 12 April 2002 by Gustaaf Van
Dyck, residing at Wuustwezel (Belgium), represented by Mat-              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
thias E. Storme and Ann Gobien, lawyers.                                 ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 11 April 2002 by Gustaaf Van
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Dyck, residing at Wuustwezel (Belgium), represented by Stefan
                                                                         Corbanie and André Bywater, lawyers.
(1) annul the tacit decision by which the appointing authority
      refused the request submitted to it by the applicant on
      12 February 2001 seeking the adoption by it of a decision          The applicant claims that the Court should:
      concerning the possible application to him of Article
      31(2) of the Staff Regulations, having regard to the               (1) annul the decision adopted by the Commission on
      applicant’s professional experience and training, and, in                 10 January 2002 and notified on 15 January 2002,
      so far as may be necessary, annul the decision of                         rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 14 August 2001;
      15 January 2002, drawn up in French, rejecting the
      applicant’s complaint of 10 September 2001, and, lastly,
                                                                         (2) annul the Commission’s decision of 5 July 2001 whereby
      annul the translation of that decision into Dutch, prepared
                                                                                it decided to take no action in respect of the request
      on 18 February 2002;
                                                                                submitted by the applicant on 1 July 2001 concerning
(2) order the Commission to adopt all measures necessary to                     promotion to grade B 2;
      implement the judgment to be delivered in the present
      case;                                                              (3) annul the Commission’s decision whereby it decided to
                                                                                review the applicant’s staff report;
(3) order the Commission to pay all the costs.
                                                                         (4) order the Commission to pay all the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of his claim, the applicant pleads infringement of
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations. According to the
applicant, no decision has to date been adopted in respect of
his request that Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations be
                                                                         The applicant pleads infringement of Article 45(1) and of the
applied in his case. The applicant further pleads infringement
                                                                         first paragraph of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations. According
of the duty to have regard for the welfare and interests of              to the applicant, the decision of the Promotion Committee did
officials, of the obligation to provide an adequate statement of
                                                                         not contain an adequate statement of reasons. Moreover, the
reasons and of the principle of proper administration.
                                                                         reasons given in the Commission’s response to the applicant’s
                                                                         complaint are unfounded.


title: Case T-386/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 29 October 2009 — Peek & Cloppenburg v OHIM — Redfil (Agile) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark Agile — Earlier Community and national word marks Aygill’s — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               19.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 312/27

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 29 October 2009 — Peek & Cloppenburg v OHIM — Redfil (Agile)
   (Case T-386/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark Agile - Earlier Community and national word marks Aygill’s - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2009/C 312/44
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Peek & Cloppenburg (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: T. Dolde, A. Renck and V. von Bomhard, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented: initially by S. Laitinen, and subsequently by R. Pethke, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Redfil, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: C. Hernández Hernández, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 July 2007 (Case R 1324/2006-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Peek & Cloppenburg and Redfil, SL.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 26 July 2007 (Case R 1324/2006 2).

               2.

               Orders OHIM to pay the costs incurred by Peek & Cloppenburg.

               3.

               Orders Redfil, SL to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 297, 8.12.2007.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 6 November 1997 in Case C-116/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof): Reisebüro Binder GmbH v. Finanzamt Stuttgart-Körperschaften (Sixth VAT Directive - Cross-frontier passenger transport - The place of supply and the taxable amount in relation to transport services)

text:
20 . 12 . 97            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 387/5
2 . examination of Regulation No 1247/92, in so far as it               concerned, be allocated on a pro rata basis, having regard
     sets aside, in the case of disability living allowance, the        to the distances covered in each such State.
     principle of waiver of residence clauses laid down in
     Article 10 of Regulation No 1408/71 , has not
                                                                        (') OJ C 158 , 1 . 6 . 1996 .
     disclosed any factor of such a kind as to affect its
     validity.
(') OJ C 77, 16 . 3 . 1996 .
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( Fourth Chamber)
                                                                                of 6 November 1997
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                        in Case C- 164/96 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
                          ( Fifth Chamber)                              the Consiglio di Stato ): Regione Piemonte v. Saiagricola
                       of 6 November 1997                                                                 SpA n
                                                                        (Regulation (EEC) No 797/85 — Different treatment of
in Case C- 116/96 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
the    Bundesfinanzhof):          Reisebiiro Binder    GmbH     v.
                                                                                individual farmers and legal persons)
            Finanzamt Stuttgart-Korperschaften (')                                                    ( 97/C 387/09 )
(Sixth VAT Directive — Cross-frontier passenger transport
— The place of supply and the taxable amount in relation
                       to transport services)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                             ( 97/C 387/08 )
                                                                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
                (Language of the case: German)
                                                                        In Case C-164/96 : reference to the Court under Article 177
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be          of the EC Treaty from the Consiglio di Stato for a
          published in the European Court Reports)                      preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
                                                                        court between Regione Piemonte and Saiagricola SpA —
                                                                        on the interpretation of Council Directive 72/159/EEC of
In Case C-l 16/96 : reference to the Court under Article 177            17 April 1972 on the modernization of farms ( OJ English
of the EC Treaty from the Bundesfinanzhof ( Federal
                                                                        Special Edition 1972 ( II ), p. 324 ) and Council Regulation
Finance Court ), for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings            ( EEC ) No 797/85 of 12 March 1985 on improving the
pending before that court between Reisebiiro Binder                     efficiency of agricultural structures ( OJ 1985 L 93 , p. 1 )
                                                                        — the Court ( Fourth Chamber ), composed of: H.
GmbH and Finanzamt Stuttgart-Korperschaften — on the
interpretation of Article 9 ( 2 ) ( b ) of Sixth Council                Ragnemalm, President of the Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn
Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
                                                                        and J. L. Murray ( Rapporteur ), Judges; P. Leger, Advocate
harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating                 General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                        6 November 1997, in which it has ruled :
to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax:
uniform basis of assessment ( OJ 1977 L 145 , p. 1 ) — the
Court ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of: C. Gulmann,
President of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida ,                   council Directive 72/159/EEC of 17 April 1972 on the
D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet ( Rapporteur ) and P.                modernization of farms and Council Regulation (EEC)
Jann, Judges; A. La Pergola , Advocate General; H. von                  No 797/85 of 12 March 1985 on improving the efficiency
Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a              of agricultural structures are to be interpreted as meaning
judgment on 6 November 1997, in which it has ruled :                    that Member States which introduce a register intended to
                                                                        determine eligibility under the system of aids established
                                                                        by Directive 72/159 are not permitted to refuse to register
                                                                        certain legal persons solely by reason of the legal form
article 9 (2) (b) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of              they have assumed or to introduce a special system of
17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the                     identification by creating a specific register intended for
Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common                       natural persons alone.
system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment
must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of the
supply of cross-frontier passenger transport on an all                 (') OJ C 197, 6 . 7. 1996 .
inclusive basis, the total consideration for that service
must, for the purposes of determining the part of the
transport operation taxable in each of the Member States


title: Case C-136/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Curte de Apel Târgu-Mureș (Romania) lodged on 15 March 2010 — Daniel Ionel Obreja v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice a județului Mureș, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu

text:
               19.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/18

      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Curte de Apel Târgu-Mureș (Romania) lodged on 15 March 2010 — Daniel Ionel Obreja v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice a județului Mureș, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu
      (Case C-136/10)
      (2010/C 161/26)
      Language of the case: Romanian

         Referring court

      Curte de Apel Târgu-Mureș

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Daniel Ionel Obreja

         Defendant: Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice a județului Mureș, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Is the introduction of a pollution tax for the period from 1 July 2008 to 15 December 2008 under the Romanian legislation in question (Emergency Order No 50/2008) consistent with the principles of customs union and the prohibition on double taxation established in Articles 23 TEC, 25 TEC and 90 TEC, in so far as those Treaty provisions permit the introduction of a pollution tax for the purpose set out by the Romanian legislature in the preamble to Emergency Order No 50/2008, a purpose which is also provided for in Article 174 TEC et seq, namely to ensure the protection of the environment through the implementation of programmes and projects intended to improve air quality and to attain the limit values laid down by the relevant Community legislation? In other words, more specifically: where a pollution tax is introduced in a Member State of the European Union which is levied on the first registration in that State of new or second-hand motor vehicles imported from another Member State, can the provisions in Article 174 TEC et seq be regarded as justifying the disapplication of Articles 23 TEC, 25 TEC and 90 TEC?

                  2.

                  Where such a vehicle has been subject in a Member State to a similar tax, that is a pollution tax (having the same conceptual content and the same scope, namely relating to respect for the environment in accordance with the principles and objectives laid down in Articles 174 TEC et seq), upon first registration in another Member State, is it possible to introduce such a pollution tax with the same objectives as those laid down in Articles 174 TEC et seq, even if the vehicle has already previously been subject to a pollution tax in another Member State?

                  3.

                  Finally, where, in the contrary case, such a vehicle has not been subject to a pollution tax in another Member State (either because such a tax does not exist or for other reasons) but, upon subsequent registration in a different Member State, such as Romania, where a tax of that kind is levied, the pollution tax is levied upon first registration of the vehicle in that State, can the principles of customs union and [the rules prohibiting] indirect domestic protection measures laid down in Articles 23 TEC, 25 TEC and 90 TEC be regarded as having been infringed?


title: Case T-271/14: Order of the General Court of 16 March 2015 — Styron Deutschland v Commission

text:
               11.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/38

         Order of the General Court of 16 March 2015 — Styron Deutschland v Commission
   (Case T-271/14) (1)

   (2015/C 155/48)
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.


title: Case C-457/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Penale di Terni (Italy) by order of that court of 20 November 2002 in criminal proceedings against Antonio Niselli

text:
C 31/14                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                         8.2.2003
—     Lump-sum financial corrections have already been                   Pleas in law and main arguments
      imposed in respect of the crop years 1994, 1995 and
      1996 for the same reason; lack of a statement of reasons,
      or otherwise an insufficient statement of reasons, because
      of an error as to the facts, of misappraisal of the facts and      The time-limit for transposition expired on 31 July 2001.
      of a failure to take account of relevant matters.
—     In the alternative: the Commission lacked competence
      ratione temporis; incorrect interpretation and application         (1 ) OJ 1999 L 201, p. 77.
      of Article 5(2)(c) of Regulation No 729/70 and
      Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1663/95.
( 1) OJ No L 61, 10.3.1999, p. 37.
( 2) OJ No L 280, 18.10.2002, p. 88.
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Penale
                                                                         di Terni (Italy) by order of that court of 20 November
                                                                             2002 in criminal proceedings against Antonio Niselli
Action brought on 11 December 2002 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                               Spain                                                              (Case C-457/02)
                         (Case C-449/02)
                                                                                (2003/C 31/21)
                          (2003/C 31/20)
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by order of the Tribunale Penale di
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before the
                                                                         Terni (Italy) of 20 November 2002, which was received at the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 11 December
                                                                         Court Registry on 18 December 2002, for a preliminary
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,                      ruling in criminal proceedings against Antonio Niselli on the
represented by Maria Patakia, Legal Adviser, and Isabel Martí-
                                                                         following questions to determine whether the definition of
nez del Peral, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents.
                                                                         ‘waste’ introduced by Directive 75/442/EEC (1), as amended by
                                                                         Directive 91/156/EEC (2), must continue to be understood and
                                                                         interpreted for the time being in Italy in the light of the case-
The applicant claims that the Court should :                             law of the Court of Justice cited above or in the light of
                                                                         Article 14 of Legislative Decree No 138 of 8 July 2002,
                                                                         converted into Law No 178 of 8 August 2002:
—     Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
      within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
      administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      Directive 1999/42/EC ( 1) of the European Parliament and
      of the Council of 7 June 1999 establishing a mechanism             Must the concept of waste be strictly subject to the following
                                                                         conditions: that the words ‘discards’, ‘intends to discard’ or ‘is
      for the recognition of qualifications in respect of the
      professional activities covered by the Directives on liberal-      required to discard’, introduced into Italian law by
                                                                         Article 6(1)(a) of Legislative Decree No 22 of 5 February 1997,
      isation and transitional measures and supplementing the
      general systems for the recognition of qualifications or,          are to be interpreted as follows:
      in any event, by failing to communicate them, the
      Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      that directive;                                                    (a)   ‘discards’: any conduct whereby, directly or indirectly,
                                                                               substances, materials or goods are disposed of or subject-
                                                                               ed to disposal or recycling, in accordance with Annexes B
—     Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.                             and C to Legislative Decree No 22;
 ---pagebreak--- 8.2.2003              EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 31/15
(b)  ‘intends to discard’: the intention to subject substances,         (a)   they can and are in fact and objectively reutilised for the
     materials or goods to disposal or recycling, in accordance               same or similar or different production or consumption
     with Annexes B and C to Legislative Decree No 22;                        purposes, provided they have not previously been dis-
                                                                              posed of and do not harm the environment;
(c)  ‘is required to discard’: the obligation to submit sub-
     stances, materials or goods to for recycling or disposal as        (b)   they can and are in fact and objectively reutilised for the
     a result of a statutory provision, a measure laid down by                same or similar or different production or consumption
     a public authority or of the nature of the substances,                   purposes, after having previously been disposed of,
     materials or goods themselves, or because they are                       provided that no recycling of the kind mentioned in
     included in the list of hazardous waste set forth in                     Annex C to Legislative Decree No 22/97, in force in Italy
     Annex D to Legislative Decree No 22?                                     (which faithfully reproduces Annex II B to Directive 91/
                                                                              156/EEC), is necessary?
Does the concept of ‘waste’ not apply to materials, goods or
substances which are production or consumption residue                  (1 ) OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39.
where:                                                                  (2 ) OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32.