title: Case C-89/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin, by order of that court of 3 December 1999 in the case of Bülent Recep Bicakci, Bedriye Bicakci, Hidajet Kemal Bicakci and Burak Bicakci against Land Berlin

text:
27.5.2000                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 149/23
2. Must Regulation No 1785/81 be interpreted as meaning                       law, annulled on grounds of lack of competence, under
     that the classification of an area as a deficit area is to be            Article 133(2)(b) of the Código do Procedimento Adminis-
     based on a calculation method which treats as being                      trativo (Code on Administrative Procedure), inasmuch as
     consumed in that area sugar which is incorporated there                  the final decision on such matters falls within the purview
     in a processed product even if the latter is eaten in another            of the Commission of the European Communities, and in
     country, or is the classification of an area as a deficit area           other cases, to the opposite effect, it has held that the
     to be based on a calculation method which does not treat                 DAFSE has exclusive competence, a view supported by the
     as being consumed in that area sugar which is incorporated               fact that in Portuguese law it is expressly provided
     there in a processed product even if the latter is eaten in              that authenticated orders or decisions of the DAFSE are
     another country?                                                         enforceable in respect of debts arising from certification.
3. Is Regulation (EC) No 1361/98 26 June 1998, published
     in OJ 1998 L 185, p. 3, valid, in view of the fact that it
     fails to fix a derived intervention price for all areas of Italy    (1) OJ 1983 L 289, p. 1.
     in accordance with Article 3(1). Article 5(3), and Article          (2) OJ 1983 L 289, p. 38.
     6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1785/81 and contains no
     statement of reasons for that omission?
(1) OJ L 185 of 30.6.98, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 185 of 30.6.98, p. 3.
(3) OJ L 177 of 1.7.81, p. 4.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supremo
Tribunal Administrativo, 1a Secção, 3a Subsecção by
judgment of that court of 24 November 1999 in the case                   Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungs-
of Directora-Geral do Departamento para os Assuntos do                   gericht Berlin, by order of that court of 3 December 1999
Fundo Social Europeu against Mobilcromo — Indústria                     in the case of Bülent Recep Bicakci, Bedriye Bicakci,
         de Mobiliário e Revestimentos Metálicos, Lda                  Hidajet Kemal Bicakci and Burak Bicakci against Land
                                                                                Berlin
                           (Case C-88/00)
                          (2000/C 149/40)                                                          (Case C-89/00)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Supremo Tribunal
Administrativo, 1a Secção, 3a Subsecção (Second Sub-Chamber                                     (2000/C 149/41)
of the First Chamber of the Supreme Administrative Court) of
24 November 1999, which was received at the Court Registry
on 7 March 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of                 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Directora-Geral do Departamento para os Assuntos do Fundo                European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht
Social Europeu against Mobilcromo — Indústria de Mobiliário            Berlin (Administrative Court, Berlin), of 3 December 1999,
e Revestimentos Metálicos, Lda. The Supremo Tribunal Admin-             received at the Court Registry on 8 March 2000, for a
istrativo referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling on the          preliminary ruling in the case of Bülent Recep Bicakci, Bedriye
interpretation of Community law, namely:                                 Bicakci, Hidajet Kemal Bicakci and Burak Bicakci against Land
                                                                         Berlin, on the following question:
— Articles 1, 5(4), 6(1) and (2), and 7(1), (2) and (5) of
     Council Regulation (EEC) No 2950/83 (1) of 17 October
     1983 on the implementation of Decision 83/516/EEC (2)
     on the tasks of the European Social Fund (ESF);                     Is the termination of the residence of a Turkish national who
                                                                         fulfils the requirements of the first sentence of Article 7 of
     and                                                                 Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Association Council, by
— Article 5(1) and (5) of Council Decision 83/516/EEC on                 the expulsion of that person solely on general preventive
                                                                         grounds relating to the deterrence of other aliens, compatible
     the tasks of the European Social Fund in order to ascertain
                                                                         with Article 14(1) of Decision No 1/80?
     the legal nature of the certification by the national
     authorities as to the accuracy of the facts and accounts in
     payment claims for the return of certain amounts relating
     to vocational training projects funded by the European
     Social Fund, a certificate on which the Supremo Tribunal
     Administrativo has, in some cases, according to its case-


title: Case T-492/17: Action brought on 31 July 2017 — Fleig v EEAS

text:
               25.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 318/20

         Action brought on 31 July 2017 — Fleig v EEAS
   (Case T-492/17)
   (2017/C 318/27)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Stephan Fleig (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

      Defendant: European External Action Service (EEAS)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of 19 September 2016 by which the Director of the ‘Human Resources’ Directorate of the European External Action Service (EEAS), acting in his capacity as the authority authorised to conclude contracts of employment, decided to terminate the applicant’s employment contract of indefinite duration with effect from 19 June 2017 (in the version of that decision to terminate most recently received through the rejection of the applicant’s complaint on 19 April 2017);

               —

               order the EEAS to pay to the applicant a reasonable sum, of an amount to be decided by the Court, as compensation for the non-material damage suffered by him; and

               —

               order the EEAS to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law: manifest errors of assessment on the part of the European External Action Service (EEAS).

               2.

               Second plea in law: infringement by the EEAS of the duty of care, of the principle of good administration (Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union), of the principle of proportionality and of the right to protection against unjustified dismissal (Article 30 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union).

               3.

               Third plea in law: infringement of the right to be heard under Article 41(1) and 41(2)(a) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.


title: Case T-553/14: Action brought on 22 July 2014 — Wm. Wrigley Jr. v OHIM (Extra)

text:
               6.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 351/16

         Action brought on 22 July 2014 — Wm. Wrigley Jr. v OHIM (Extra)
   (Case T-553/14)
   2014/C 351/19
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company (Wilmington, United States) (represented by: M. Kinkeldey, S. Brandstätter and C. Schmitt, lawyers)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 May 2014 given in Case R 218/2014-5.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark in black and white containing the verbal element ‘Extra’ for goods in Classes 3, 21 and 30 — Community trade mark application No 11 737 657

      Decision of the Examiner: Rejected the CTM application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) CTMR.


28.3.98                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 94/11
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger
                                                                        Verwaltungssenat Salzburg by order of that body of
The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third                     21 January 1998 in the case of Karl-Heinz Meinert against
                                                                                Bezirkshauptmannschaft Salzburg-Umgebung
paragraph of Article 189 and the first paragraph of
Article 5 of the EC Treaty requires Member States to                                          (Case C-20/98)
adopt the measures necessary to transpose directives
addressed to them into their domestic law before the                                            (98/C 94/21)
expiry of the period prescribed for doing so. That period
expired on 1 July 1995 without Spain having brought into
force the necessary provisions.
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
( ) OJ L 141, 11.6.1993, p. 27.
 1                                                                      European Communities by order of the Unabhängiger Ver-
                                                                        waltungssenat     (Independent     Administrative     Board)
                                                                        Salzburg of 21 January 1998, received at the Court
                                                                        Registry on 26 January 1998, for a preliminary ruling in
                                                                        the case of Karl-Heinz Meinert against Bezirkshauptmann-
                                                                        schaft (District Administrative Authority) Salzburg-Umge-
                                                                        bung on the following question:
Action brought on 23 January 1998 by the Commission of
 the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain
                         (Case C-19/98)
                                                                        Are Articles 30 to 36 of the EC Treaty (provisions on the
                          (98/C 94/20)                                  freedom of movement of goods) and the other provisions
                                                                        of applicable Community law to be interpreted as
                                                                        preventing a Member State from restricting the transport
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought                      of animals for slaughter in that animals may be
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                 transported for slaughter only as far as the nearest suitable
on 23 January 1998 by the Commission of the European                    abattoir in that State, and may be transported for
Communities, represented by Christina Tufvesson and Eric                slaughter in any event only if the provisions of law
Gippini Fournier, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents,               regarding motor vehicles and traffic regulation are
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of              observed and a total journey time of six hours and a
Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, 254, Wagner Centre.                            distance of 130 kilometres are not exceeded, whereby, in
                                                                        calculating the distance, account is taken of only half of
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             the kilometres actually travelled on a motorway?
Ð declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force,
     or    communicate,         the    laws,    regulations    or
     administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December
     1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member
     States relating to insurance against civil liability in            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hof van Beroep,
     respect of the use of motor vehicles (1), the Kingdom              Ghent, by judgment of 15 January 1998, in the case of the
     of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under                Openbaar Ministerie v. Jean Claude Becu, Annie Verweire,
     Article 1(4)(2) thereof and the EC Treaty,                                        NV Smeg and NV Adia Interim
                                                                                (Case C-22/98)
Ð declare that, by not answering the letters of
     22 February and 10 October 1994 or the letter of                                           (98/C 94/22)
     formal notice of 14 February 1996, the Kingdom of
     Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC
     Treaty, and
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.                                 European Communities by judgment of 15 January 1998
                                                                        of the Hof van Beroep (Court of Appeal), Ghent, which
                                                                        was received at the Court Registry on 28 January 1998,
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     for a preliminary ruling in the case of the Openbaar
                                                                        Ministerie (Public Prosecutor's Department) v. Jean
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to                    Claude Becu, Annie Verweire, NV Smeg and NV Adia
those relied on in Case C-18/98 (2); the time limit for                 Interim, on the following questions:
transposition expired on 31 December 1987.
(1) OJ L 8, 11.1.1984, p. 17.                                           1. As Community law now stands, can those subject to
(2) See page 10 of this Official Journal.                                   it, be they natural or legal persons, acquire rights
                                                                            under Article 90(1) of the EC Treaty, in conjunction
                                                                            with Articles 7, 85 and 86 thereof, which Member


title: Case C-254/09 P: Appeal brought on 9 July 2009 by Calvin Klein Trademark Trust against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 7 May 2009 in Case T-185/07 Calvin Klein Trademark Trust v OHIM and Zafra Marroquineros, S.L.

text:
               29.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/29

         Appeal brought on 9 July 2009 by Calvin Klein Trademark Trust against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 7 May 2009 in Case T-185/07 Calvin Klein Trademark Trust v OHIM and Zafra Marroquineros, S.L.
   (Case C-254/09 P)
   2009/C 205/50
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Calvin Klein Trademark Trust (represented by: T. Andrade Boué, lawyer)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and Zafra Marroquineros, S.L.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) of 7 May 2009 in Case T-185/07;

               —

               Order OHIM and Zafra Marroquineros, S.L. to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The judgment runs counter to the case-law on the interpretation of Article 8(1) of Regulation No 40/94 (1) on the Community trade mark concerning the need to take into account all the factors characterising a specific case: the Court of First Instance failed to give appropriate legal weight to the fact that the party applying for the Community trade mark has used that mark to copy the cK marks which have reputation, and through its own acts, it makes it clear, in no uncertain terms, that the letters CK constitute the most distinctive part of the Community trade mark in question.
   Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 40/94 as the Court of First Instance failed to assess the reputation of the opposing marks in the context of that article.

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


title: Case C-112/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Vestre Landsret by order of 9 March 2001 in the case of ApS SPKR 4 No 3482 v (1) Skatteministeriet, (2) Public limited company of 11/9 1996, and (3) A.T.S. I/S Arden Transport & Spedition, represented by Søren Lauritsen and Lene Lauritsen

text:
C 134/10                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        5.5.2001
8 February 2001, which was received at the Court Registry on              2.    In the examination of the question whether ‘the same
7 March 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of                           cause of action’ has been brought, are exclusively the
1) Consorzio del Prosciutto Di Parma 2) Salumificio S. Rita                     pleadings of the plaintiff in the proceedings initiated by a
S.P.A. against 1) Asda Stores Limited 2) Hygrade Foods                          later action decisive and the defences and submissions of
Limited, on the following question:                                             the defendant therefore irrelevant, in particular also the
                                                                                defence of the procedural objection of set-off concerning
                                                                                a claim that is the subject-matter of a legal dispute
As a matter of Community law, does Council Regulation                           between the same parties on the basis of an action that
(EEC) No 2081/92 (1) read with Commission Regulation (EC)                       has already been brought earlier in another Contracting
No 1107/96 (2) and the specification for the PDO (3)‘prosciutto                 State?
di Parma’ create a valid Community right, directly enforceable
in the court of a member state, to restrain the retail sale as            3.    Where, on the basis of an action to enforce a contract
‘Parma ham’ of sliced and packaged ham derived from hams                        seeking damages for unlawful termination of a long-term
duly exported from Parma in compliance with the conditions                      obligation, the question as to whether such a long-term
of the PDO but which have not been thereafter sliced, packaged                  obligation existed at all is decided, is that decision also
and labelled in accordance with the specification?                              binding in subsequent proceedings between the same
                                                                                parties?
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the
    protection of geographical indications and designations of origin
    for agricultural products and foodstuffs (JO L 208, 24.07.1992,
    p. 1).
(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 of 12 June 1996 on
    the registration of geographical indications and designations of
    origin under the procedure laid down in Article 17 of Council
    Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 (JO L 148, 21.06.1996, p. 1).
(3) (protected designation of origin).                                    Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Vestre Landsret
                                                                          by order of 9 March 2001 in the case of ApS SPKR 4
                                                                          No 3482 v (1) Skatteministeriet, (2) Public limited com-
                                                                          pany of 11/9 1996, and (3) A.T.S. I/S Arden Transport &
                                                                          Spedition, represented by Søren Lauritsen and Lene
                                                                                Lauritsen
                                                                                (Case C-112/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 134/16)
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster
Gerichtshof, Austria, by order of that court of 22 February
2001 in the case of Gantner Electronic GmbH v Basch                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                  Exploitatie Maatschappij B.V.                           European Communities by order of 9 March 2001 by the
                                                                          Vestre Landsret (Western Regional Court), which was received
                                                                          at the Court Registry on 12 March 2001, for a preliminary
                          (Case C-111/01)                                 ruling in the case of ApS SPKR 4 No 3482 v (1) Skatteministe-
                                                                          riet (Ministry of Fiscal Affairs), (2) Public limited company of
                                                                          11/9 1996, and (3) AT.S. I/S Arden Transport & Spedition,
                          (2001/C 134/15)                                 represented by Søren Lauritsen and Lene Lauritsen, on the
                                                                          following questions:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Oberster Gerichts-
hof (Supreme Court), Austria, of 22 February 2001, which was              Question 1
received at the Court Registry on 12 March 2001, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Gantner Electronic GmbH v
Basch Exploitatie Maatschappij B.V. on the following questions:           Must the provisions in Council Regulation No 2913/92 (1) (the
                                                                          Customs Code) and in Commission Regulation No 2454/93 (2)
                                                                          (the implementing regulation), in particular Article 379(1) of
1.    Does the concept of ‘the same cause of action’ in                   the implementing regulation, be construed as meaning that a
      Article 21 of the Brussels Convention extend also to the            customs debt arising by reason of an offence or irregularity
      defence of the defendant that he has extinguished a part            in connection with external Community transit cannot be
      of the claim sued for by extra-judicial set-off, where the          recovered by the office of departure from the principal in so
      part of this counterclaim that is allegedly not extinguished        far as the principal did not, before the end of the eleventh
      is the subject-matter of a legal dispute between the same           month following the date of registration of the Community
      parties on the basis of an action that has already been             transit declaration, receive the notification referred to in
      brought earlier in another Contracting State?                       Article 379 of the implementing regulation?
 ---pagebreak--- 5.5.2001                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 134/11
Question 2                                                               Pleas in law and main arguments
Does the fact that the office of departure did not follow an             The mandatory nature of the provisions of Articles 10 and
administrative instruction for the transmission of information           249 EC is such as to oblige Member States to adopt the
laid down in the Customs Code Committee (early warning                   measures necessary in order to transpose directives which are
system) or that the authorities in the office of departure can be        addressed to them into their national legal order prior to the
criticised for failure to notify in good time have any bearing           expiry of the time-limits prescribed for so doing. Those time-
on the answer to Question 1?                                             limits, laid down in Article 5 of Directive 1999/20/EC and in
                                                                         Article 2 of Directive 96/51/EC, expired on 30 September and
                                                                         1 October 1999 respectively.
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992
    establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302,
    p. 1).                                                               (1) OJ L 80 of 25.3.1999, p. 20.
(2) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying         (2) OJ L 235 of 17.9.1996, p. 39.
    down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation
    (EEC) No 2913/92 (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1).
                                                                         Action brought on 19 March 2001 by Commission of the
Action brought on 16 March 2001 by the Commission of                                European Communities against Finland
 the European Communities against the French Republic
                                                                                (Case C-119/01)
                          (Case C-118/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 134/18)
                          (2001/C 134/17)
                                                                         An action against Finland was brought before the Court of
An action against the French Republic was brought before the             Justice of the European Communities on 19 March 2001 by
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 16 March                 the Commission of the European Communities, represented
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,                      by Lena Ström, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
represented by A. Bordes, acting as Agent, with an address for           Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner
service in Luxembourg.                                                   Center, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.
The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                         The Commission claims that the Court should:
the Court should:
1.    declare that, by failing to bring into force within the            —     declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations,
      prescribed time-limits the laws, regulations and adminis-                and administrative provisions necessary to implement
      trative measures necessary in order to comply with:                      Directive 96/61/EC (1) concerning integrated pollution
                                                                               prevention and control with regard to the province of
      —     Council Directive 1999/20/EC of 22 March 1999                      Åland, or in any case by failing to communicate them to
            amending Directives 70/524/EEC concerning addi-                    the Commission, Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations
            tives in feedingstuffs, 82/471/EEC concerning cer-                 under the directive;
            tain products used in animal nutrition, 95/53/EC
            fixing the principles governing the organisation of          —     order Finland to pay the costs.
            official inspections in the field of animal nutrition
            and 95/69/EC laying down the conditions and
            arrangements for approving and registering certain           Pleas in law and main arguments
            establishments and intermediaries operating in the
            animal feed sector (1);                                      The period for implementing the directive expired on 30 Octo-
                                                                         ber 1999. As regards the province of Åland the Commission
      —     Council Directive 96/51/EC of 23 July 1996                   was informed that a provincial law on the protection of the
            amending Directive 70/524/EEC concerning addi-               environment and environmental planets was adopted by the
            tives in feedingstuffs (2),                                  Lagtinget, but that it does not depend upon the Finnish
                                                                         president’s ratification.
      the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
      under the abovementioned directives and under the third
      paragraph of Article 249 and the first paragraph of                (1) Text of 24.9.1996 (OJ L 257 of 10.10.1996, p. 26).
      Article 10 of the EC Treaty;
2.    order the French Republic to pay the costs.


title: Case T-633/13: Action brought on 22 November 2013 — Reed Exhibitions v OHIM (INFOSECURITY)

text:
               22.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 52/37

         Action brought on 22 November 2013 — Reed Exhibitions v OHIM (INFOSECURITY)
   (Case T-633/13)
   2014/C 52/71
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Reed Exhibitions Ltd (Richmond, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 September 2013 given in Case R 1544/2012-5;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘INFOSECURITY’ for goods and services in Classes 16, 35 and 41 — Community trade mark application No 10 155 596

      Decision of the Examiner: Partially rejected the CTM application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b) and (c) and 7(3) CTMR.


title: Case C-215/08: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 April 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — E. Friz GmbH v Carsten von der Heyden (Consumer protection — Contracts negotiated away from business premises — Scope of Directive 85/577/EEC — Entry into a closed-end real property fund established in the form of a partnership — Cancellation)

text:
               5.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/5

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 April 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — E. Friz GmbH v Carsten von der Heyden
   (Case C-215/08) (1)

   (Consumer protection - Contracts negotiated away from business premises - Scope of Directive 85/577/EEC - Entry into a closed-end real property fund established in the form of a partnership - Cancellation)
   2010/C 148/07
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: E. Friz GmbH

      Defendant: Carsten von der Heyden

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of Articles 1(1) and 5(2) of Council Directive 85/577/EEC of 20 December 1985 to protect the consumer in respect of contracts negotiated away from business premises (OJ 1985 L 372, p. 31) — Scope — Consumer joining a closed-end real property fund in the form of a partnership whose essential purpose is the investment of capital — Legal effects of cancellation.

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Council Directive 85/577/EEC of 20 December 1985 to protect the consumer in respect of contracts negotiated away from business premises applies to a contract, concluded in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, concerning a consumer’s entry to a closed-end real property fund established in the form of a partnership when the principal purpose of joining is not to become a member of that partnership, but is a means of capital investment;

               2.

               Article 5(2) of the Directive does not preclude, in circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, a national law according to which, in the event of cancellation of membership of a closed-end real property fund established in the form of a partnership, entered into following a doorstep transaction, the consumer has a claim against that partnership, to his severance balance, calculated on the basis of the value of his interest at the date of his retirement from membership of that fund, and may therefore get back less than the value of his capital contribution or have to participate in the losses of that fund.

      (1)  OJ C 209, 15.8.2008.


title: Case T-123/15: Action brought on 16 March 2015 — Unicorn v OHIM — Mercilink Equipment Leasing (UNICORN-čerpací stanice)

text:
               26.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/29

         Action brought on 16 March 2015 — Unicorn v OHIM — Mercilink Equipment Leasing (UNICORN-čerpací stanice)
   (Case T-123/15)
   (2015/C 171/34)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Unicorn a.s. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: L. Lorenc, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mercilink Equipment Leasing Ltd (Limassol, Cyprus)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘UNICORN-čerpací stanice’ — Community trade mark No 11 014 685

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 January 2015 in Case R 153/2014-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the contested decision;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               OHIM did not properly take into consideration evidence submitted by the applicant;

               —

               OHIM incorrectly considered good reputation of the earlier trademarks.


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 June 2005 in Case C-123/02: European Parliament v Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance (Arbitration clause — Insurance policies — Termination on grounds of increase of the risk insured — Abuse — Contractual liability — Damages)

text:
               6.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/1

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Third Chamber)
   of 16 June 2005
   in Case C-123/02: European Parliament v Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance (1)

   (Arbitration clause - Insurance policies - Termination on grounds of increase of the risk insured - Abuse - Contractual liability - Damages)
   (2005/C 193/01)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-123/02 European Parliament (Agents: D. Petersheim, O. Caisou-Rousseau and M. Ecker) v Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance (Lawyers: J.-L. Fagnart and L. Vael) — action brought on 5 April 2002 under Article 238 EC — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and K. Schiemann, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; M. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 16 June 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Holds that the termination of guarantees in contracts nos. 5.013.347 and 1F516.071 notified by Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance to the European Parliament on 9 October and 6 November 2001 constitutes a wrongful termination of those contracts;

               2.

               Orders Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance to compensate the damage caused to the European Parliament as a result of the wrongful termination of contracts nos. 5.013.347 and 1F516.071;

               3.

               Holds that the sum due as compensation for the damage which Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance caused the European Parliament in respect of the year 2001 is obtained by multiplying, firstly, the sum of EUR 205 131,75 by the percentage of premiums received by Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance out of the total sum of those due by the Parliament to the four co-assurors and by multiplying, secondly, the sum of EUR 178 453,01 by the same percentage and by the fraction 44/46, which corresponds to the proportion of the length of time involved. The sum which that institution paid or should have paid to Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance under the ‘labour disputes/terrorist acts’ guarantee for its assets in Belgium and Luxembourg for the period 5 November to 31 December 2001 and in respect of all the guarantees covering its assets in France for the period 18 November 2001 to 31 December 2001 must then be deducted from the sum of those two products;

               4.

               Holds that the sum due as compensation for the damage which Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance caused the European Parliament in respect of the year 2002 is obtained by multiplying the sum of EUR 389 291,73 by the percentage of premiums which Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance would have received out of the total of those which the European Parliament should have paid the four co-assurors in respect of the guarantees for the year 2002 and by deducting from the product thus obtained the sum which that institution should have paid Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance in respect of the cover for its assets in France against all material damage for the year 2002;

               5.

               Holds that the sums due to the European Parliament by Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance generate interest at the statutory rate with effect from 4 April 2002;

               6.

               Orders Royal & Sun Alliance to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 144, 15.06.2002.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) of 28 May 1998 in Case C-3/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) Criminal Division: criminal proceedings against John Charles Goodwin and Edward Thomas Unstead (Tax provisions - Harmonisation of laws - Turnover taxes - Common system of value added tax - Sixth Directive - Scope - Supply of counterfeit perfume products)

text:
C 234/10              EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                 25.7.98
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch and Wolter, 11               Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General;
Rue Goethe Ð appeal against the judgment of the Court             L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator for the Registrar Ð
of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 27 October 1994 in          has given a judgment on 28 May 1998, in which it:
Case T-35/92 John Deere v Commission [1994] ECR
II-97, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other
party to the proceedings being Commission of the                  1. Dismisses the appeal;
European Communities, represented by Julian Currall, of
its Legal Service, acting as Agent, and Nicholas Forwood
QC Ð the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:                      2. Orders New Holland Ford Ltd to pay the costs.
C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de
Almeida, D. A. O. Edward, P. Jann and L. Sevón,
                                                                  (1) OJ C 54 of 4.3.1995.
(Rapporteur), Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate
General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator for the
Registrar Ð has given a judgment on 28 May 1998, in
which it:
1. Dismisses the appeal;                                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (First Chamber)
2. Orders John Deere Limited to pay the costs.                                           of 28 May 1998
                                                                  in Case C-3/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
(1) OJ C 54 of 4.3.1995.                                          the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) Criminal
                                                                  Division: criminal proceedings against John Charles
                                                                           Goodwin and Edward Thomas Unstead (1)
                                                                  (Tax provisions Ð Harmonisation of laws Ð Turnover
                                                                  taxes Ð Common system of value added tax Ð Sixth
                                                                  Directive Ð Scope Ð Supply of counterfeit perfume
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                          products)
                       (Fifth Chamber)                                                     (98/C 234/19)
                       of 28 May 1998
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
in Case C-8/95 P: New Holland Ford Ltd v Commission
              of the European Communities (1)
(Appeal Ð Admissibility Ð Question of law Ð Question              In Case C-3/97: reference to the Court under Article 177
of fact Ð Competition Ð Information exchange system Ð             of the EC Treaty from the Court of Appeal (England and
Restriction of competition Ð Refusal to grant an                  Wales) Criminal Division for a preliminary ruling in the
                           exemption)                             criminal proceedings pending before that court against
                                                                  John Charles Goodwin and Edward Thomas Unstead on
                         (98/C 234/18)                            the interpretation of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC
                                                                  of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the
                                                                  Member States relating to turnover taxes Ð Common
               (Language of the case: English)                    system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment
                                                                  (OJ L 145 of 13.6.1977, p. 1) Ð the Court (First
                                                                  Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the
In Case C-8/95 P: New Holland Ford Ltd, a company                 Chamber, D. A. O. Edward and P. Jann, (Rapporteur),
governed by the laws of England and Wales, established in         Judges; P. LeÂger, Advocate General; H. von Holstein,
Basildon (United Kingdom), represented by Mario                   Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 28 May 1998,
Siragusa, of the Rome Bar, Giuseppe Scassellati-Sforzolini        in which it has ruled:
and Francesca Moretti, of the Bologna Bar, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Elvinger, Hoss & Preussen, Côte d'Eich Ð appeal against           On a proper construction of Article 2 of Sixth Council
the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second               Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
Chamber) of 27 October 1994 in Case T-34/92 Fiatagri              harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating
and New Holland Ford v Commission [1994] ECR II-905,              to turnover taxes Ð Common system of value added tax:
seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other party to       uniform basis of assessment, VAT is payable on the supply
the proceedings being Commission of the European                  of counterfeit perfumes.
Communities, represented by Julian Currall, of its Legal
Service, acting as Agent, and Leonard Hawkes, Solicitor           (1) OJ C 74 of 8.3.1997.
Ð the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann,
President of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida,
D. A. O. Edward, P. Jann and L. Sevón, (Rapporteur),


title: Case T-742/14: Judgment of the General Court of 19 July 2016 — Alpha Calcit v EUIPO — Materis Paints Italia (CALCILITE) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark CALCILITE — Earlier EU word mark Calcilit — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the goods — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Relevant public — Public common to the goods in question)

text:
               29.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 314/20

         Judgment of the General Court of 19 July 2016 — Alpha Calcit v EUIPO — Materis Paints Italia (CALCILITE)
   (Case T-742/14) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark CALCILITE - Earlier EU word mark Calcilit - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the goods - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Relevant public - Public common to the goods in question))
   (2016/C 314/27)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Alpha Calcit Füllstoffgesellschaft mbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: F. Hauck, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Materis Paints Italia SpA (Novate Milanese, Italy) (represented by: P.L. Roncaglia, F. Rossi and N. Parrotta, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 September 2014 (Case R 753/2013-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Alpha Calcit Füllstoffgesellschaft and Materis Paints Italia.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 4 September 2014 (Case R 753/2013-4) as regards the ‘paints, varnishes, lacquers; preservatives against rust and against deterioration of wood; colorants; mordants’ covered by the contested trade mark;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders Alpha Calcit Füllstoffgesellschaft mbH, EUIPO and Materis Paints Italia SpA to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 462, 22.12.2014.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 November 2003 in Case C-185/00: Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directives 92/81/EEC and 92/82/EEC — Rates of excise duties on mineral oils — Fiscal control — Use of gas oil as motor fuel)

text:
C 21/2                    EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                               24.1.2004
Third Chamber                                                                        membership of the European Communities (Community law for
                                                                                1990), which is construed and applied by the administrative
—      Mr Schintgen                                                                  authorities and a substantial proportion of the courts, including
                                                                                the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy), in such a way that the
—      Ms Colneric                                                                   exercise of the right to repayment of charges levied in breach of
                                                                                Community rules is made excessively difficult for the taxpayer,
—      Sir Konrad Schiemann                                                          the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
                                                                                EC Treaty;
                                                                               2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                               (1) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         of 9 December 2003
in Case C-129/00: Commission of the European Communi-
                       ties v Italian Republic (1)                                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Construc-                                             (Sixth Chamber)
tion contrary to Community law of national legislation by
case-law and administrative practice — Conditions for the                                             of 27 November 2003
              recovery of sums paid though not due)
                                                                               in Case C-185/00: Commission of the European Communi-
                             (2004/C 21/04)                                                       ties v Republic of Finland (1)
                      (Language of the case: Italian)                          (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                                                                               Directives 92/81/EEC and 92/82/EEC — Rates of excise
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published         duties on mineral oils — Fiscal control — Use of gas oil as
                     in the European Court Reports)                                                          motor fuel)
                                                                                (2004/C 21/05)
In Case C-129/00, Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Language of the case: Finnish)
(Agent: E. Traversa, assisted by P. Biavati) v Italian Republic
(Agent: I. M. Braguglia): Application for a declaration that, by
maintaining in force Article 29(2) of Law No 428 of 29 Decem-                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
ber 1990 entitled ‘Disposizioni per l’adempimento di obblighi                                      in the European Court Reports)
derivanti dall’appartenenza dell’Italia alle Comunità europee
(legge comunitaria per il 1990)’ (Provisions for the fulfilment of
obligations deriving from Italy’s membership of the European                   In Case C-185/00, Commission of the European Communities
Communities (Community law for 1990) (GURI, Ordinary                           (Agents: E. Traversa and I. Koskinen) with an address for
Supplement No 10 of 12 January 1991, p. 5) which, as                           service in Luxembourg, supported by Kingdom of Sweden
construed and applied by the administrative authorities and                    (Agents: I. Simfors and A. Kruse) v Republic of Finland (Agents:
the courts, allows rules of evidence in relation to the passing                T. Pynnä and E. Bygglin) with an address for service in
on to third parties of the amount of charges levied in breach                  Luxembourg: Application for a declaration that, by main-
of Community rules which make exercise of the right to                         taining in force the laws and regulations on the use of gas oil
repayment of such charges virtually impossible or, at least,                   as a motor fuel, as they are applied in practice, the Republic of
excessively difficult for the taxpayer, the Italian Republic has               Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8(2) and
failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty, the Court,               (3) of Council Directive 92/81/EEC of 19 October 1992 on
composed of: V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C. W. A. Timmer-                  the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on mineral
mans, C. Gulmann, J. N. Cunha Rodrigues and A. Rosas,                          oils (OJ 1992 L 316, p. 12) and Article 5(1) of Council Directive
(Presidents of Chambers), D. A. O. Edward, A. La Pergola,                      92/82/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the approximation of
J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen, F. Macken, N. Col-                the rates of excise duties on mineral oils (OJ 1992 L 316,
neric and S. von Bahr, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General;                p. 19), the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris
L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrarm, has                   (Rapporteur), President, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet,
given a judgment on 9 December 2003, in which it:                              F. Macken and N. Colneric, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate
                                                                               General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a
1.     Declares that, by failing to amend Article 29(2) of Law                 judgment on 27 November 2003, in which it:
       No 428 of 29 December 1990 entitled ‘Disposizioni per
       l’adempimento di obblighi derivanti dall’appartenenza dell’Italia       1.    Declares that by maintaining in force the laws and regulations
       alle Comunità europee (legge comunitaria per il 1990)’                        on the use of gas oil as a fuel, as they are applied in practice,
       (Provisions for the fulfilment of obligations deriving from Italy’s           the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under
 ---pagebreak--- 24.1.2004               EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                    C 21/3
      Article 8(2) and (3) of Council Directive 92/81/EEC of                 C. W. A. Timmermans, A. Rosas, D. A. O. Edward and S. von
      19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of              Bahr (Rapporteur), Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General;
      excise duties on mineral oils, and Article 5(1) of Council             H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on
      Directive 92/82/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the approxi-                 27 November 2003, in which it has ruled:
      mation of the rates of excise duties on mineral oils;
2.    Orders the Republic of Finland to pay the costs;
                                                                             1.   A measure by which a Member State allocates to a public
                                                                                undertaking a significant proportion of charges, such as the
3.    Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to bear its own costs.                         port charges at issue in the main proceedings, must be classified
                                                                                as State aid within the meaning of Article 92(1) of the EC
                                                                                Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87(1) EC), in so far as
(1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.                                                        it affects trade between Member States, if:
                                                                                —      the allocation of the charges is not linked to clearly defined
                                                                                public-service duties, and/or
                                                                                —      the compensation allegedly necessary in order for those
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                   duties to be performed has not been calculated on the
                                                                                basis of parameters established in advance in an objective
                                                                                and transparent manner, so as to prevent that compen-
                          (Fifth Chamber)                                                sation from conferring an economic advantage which
                                                                                might favour the recipient undertaking over competing
                                                                                undertakings.
                      of 27 November 2003
                                                                                Not only the allocation of a proportion of the charges to a
In Joined Cases C-34/01 to C-38/01 (Reference for a                               public undertaking, but also the collection from users of the
preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassa-                               proportion corresponding to the amount so allocated, may
     zione): Enirisorse SpA v Ministero delle Finanze (1)                         constitute State aid incompatible with the common market. If
                                                                                the aid has not been notified, it is for the national court to take
                                                                                all measures necessary, under its national law, to prevent both
(Public undertakings — Transfer to public undertakings of                         the allocation of a proportion of the charges to the recipient
a proportion of port charges paid to the State — Competition                      undertakings and the collection of that proportion of the
— Abuse of a dominant position — State aid — Charge                               charges;
having equivalent effect — Internal taxation — Free move-
                           ment of goods)
                                                                                The fact that the collection and allocation of a proportion of the
                                                                                charges may be unlawful concerns only that proportion of the
                           (2004/C 21/06)                                         charges paid to the public undertaking in question and does not
                                                                                affect the charges as a whole.
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                             2.   Charges, such as the port charges at issue in the main
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published            proceedings, constitute internal taxation within the meaning of
                   in the European Court Reports)                                 Article 95 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 90
                                                                                EC) not falling within the ambit of Article 12 or Article 30 of
                                                                                the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 25 EC and 28
                                                                                EC). In the absence of any unequal treatment discriminating
                                                                                against goods from other Member States, the measure by virtue
In Joined Cases C-34/01 to C-38/01: Reference to the Court
                                                                                of which a Member State provides for the collection of those
under Article 234 EC by the Corte Suprema di Cassazione
                                                                                charges and the allocation of a significant proportion thereof to
(Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
                                                                                a public undertaking, when the sum so allocated corresponds to
before that court between Enirisorse SpA and Ministero delle
                                                                                a service actually provided by that undertaking, does not infringe
Finanze, on the interpretation of Article 12 of the EC Treaty
                                                                                Article 95.
(now, after amendment, Article 25 EC), Article 13 of the EC
Treaty (repealed by the Treaty of Amsterdam), Article 30 of
the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 28 EC),
Articles 86 and 90 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 82 EC and
86 EC), Article 92 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,                   (1) OJ C 79 of 10.3.2001.
Article 87 EC), Article 93 of the EC Treaty (now Article 88 EC)
and Article 95 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
Article 90 EC), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
P. Jann, acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber,


title: Case T-173/05: Action brought on 27 April 2005 by Martine Heus against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               23.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/39

         Action brought on 27 April 2005 by Martine Heus against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-173/05)
   (2005/C 182/72)
   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 27 April 2005 by Martine Heus, Anderlecht (Belgium), represented by Lucas Vogel, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               annul the decision adopted by the appointing authority on 7 January 2005 rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant on 18 October 2004 against the decision of 19 July 2004 adopted by the chairman of the selection board in competition COM/PC/04 refusing to admit the applicant to that competition;

               2.

               annul, to the extent necessary, the decision adopted on 19 July 2004 by the chairman of the selection board in competition COM/PC/04;

               3.

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant was refused admission to competition COM/PC/04 on the ground that she did not fulfil the requirement of five years' seniority within the Commission or another institution, as the periods of professional activity she had spent in the Commission on a temporary basis were not taken into account by the selection board in the competition.
   In support of her application the applicant relies on pleas of breach of Articles 27 and 29(1) of the Staff Regulations and a manifest error of assessment in so far as the contested decisions and the notice of competition, or in any event the interpretation given to them by the appointing authority, resulted in the rejection of the applicant for reasons relating solely to her former administrative status (as member of the contract staff rather than a member of staff covered by the Conditions of Employment).
   The applicant also relies on a plea of breach of the principle of non-discrimination, in so far as the criteria at issue allowed other candidates to be admitted to the competition although they were less competent or had less professional experience within the Commission.


title: Case C-118/07: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 November 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 307, second paragraph, EC — Failure to adopt appropriate steps to eliminate incompatibilities between the bilateral agreements concluded with third countries prior to accession of the Member State to the European Union and the EC Treaty — Bilateral investment agreements concluded by the Republic of Finland with the Russian Federation, the Republic of Belarus, the People’s Republic of China, Malaysia, the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka and the Republic of Uzbekistan)

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/3

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 November 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland
   (Case C-118/07) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 307, second paragraph, EC - Failure to adopt appropriate steps to eliminate incompatibilities between the bilateral agreements concluded with third countries prior to accession of the Member State to the European Union and the EC Treaty - Bilateral investment agreements concluded by the Republic of Finland with the Russian Federation, the Republic of Belarus, the People’s Republic of China, Malaysia, the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka and the Republic of Uzbekistan)
   2010/C 24/03
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Huttunen, H. Støvlbæk and B. Martenczuk, Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Finland (represented by: J. Heliskoski, Agent)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by M. Lumma and C. Blaschke, Agents), Republic of Hungary (represented by J. Fazekas, Agent), Republic of Lithuania (represented by D. Kriaučiūnas, Agent), Republic of Austria (represented by C. Pesendorfer, Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of the second paragraph of Article 307 EC — Failure to take the appropriate steps to eliminate the incompatibilities with the Treaty relating to the provisions on transfers in the bilateral investment agreements concluded by the Republic of Finland with the Russian Federation, Belarus, China, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Uzbekistan

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that by not having taken appropriate steps to eliminate incompatibilities with the Treaty concerning the provisions on transfer of capital contained in the investment agreements on the mutual promotion and protection of investments entered into by the Republic of Finland with the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics of which the Russian Federation is the successor (agreement signed on 8 February 1989), the Republic of Belarus (agreement signed on 28 October 1992), the People’s Republic of China (agreement signed on 4 September 1984), Malaysia (agreement signed on 15 April 1985), the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka (agreement signed on 27 April 1985) and the Republic of Uzbekistan (agreement signed on 1 October 1992), the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the second paragraph of Article 307 EC.;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Finland to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary and the Republic of Austria to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.


title: Case C-405/05: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 January 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 91/271/EEC — Pollution and nuisance — Treatment of urban waste water — Lack of measures to ensure the adequate treatment of urban waste water from a number of agglomerations)

text:
               10.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/10

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 January 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-405/05) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 91/271/EEC - Pollution and nuisance - Treatment of urban waste water - Lack of measures to ensure the adequate treatment of urban waste water from a number of agglomerations)
   (2007/C 56/16)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán, X. Lewis and H. van Vliet, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: C. White, acting as Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 4(1) and (3) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment (OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40) — Failure to ensure adequate treatment of urban waste water from a number of agglomerations
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to take the measures necessary to ensure that adequate treatment was provided for urban waste waters from the agglomerations of Bangor, Brighton, Broadstairs, Carrickfergus, Coleraine, Donaghadee, Larne, Lerwick, Londonderry, Margate, Newtownabbey, Omagh and Portrush by 31 December 2000 at the latest, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) and (3) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment;

               2.

               Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 48, 25.2.2006.


title: Case T-372/14: Action brought on 26 May 2014 — HK Intertrade v Council

text:
               11.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/35

         Action brought on 26 May 2014 — HK Intertrade v Council
   (Case T-372/14)
   2014/C 261/60
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: HK Intertrade Co. Ltd (Wanchai, Hong-Kong) (represented by: J. Grayston, Solicitor, P. Gjørtler, G. Pandey, D. Rovetta, D. Sellers and N. Pilkington, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Council decision contained in the letter of 14 March 2014, addressed to the lawyers of the applicant, concerning review of the list of designated persons and entities in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran, as amended by Council Decision 2012/829/CFSP of 21 December 2012, and in Annex IX to Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran, as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1264/2012 of 21 December 2012, in so far as the contested decision constitutes a refusal to remove the applicant from the list of persons and entities made subject to the restrictive measures;

               —

               join the present proceedings with the case T-159/13 in accordance with Article 50(1) of the Rules of Procedure;

               —

               order the Council to bear the costs of the present proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law, alleging that the statement of grounds was insufficient and that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment.
   The applicant argues that although it is a subsidiary of the listed company National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC), the Council has not substantiated that this entails any economic benefit for the Iranian State that would be contrary to the objective pursued by the contested measures. The applicant further submits that the Council has in fact never designated the applicant and that this error cannot be remedied by means of a corrigendum as the Council did.


title: Case T-351/14: Action brought on 20 May 2014 — Construlink/OHIM — Wit-Software (GATEWIT)

text:
               11.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/30

         Action brought on 20 May 2014 — Construlink/OHIM — Wit-Software (GATEWIT)
   (Case T-351/14)
   2014/C 261/54
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Construlink — Tecnologias de Informação, SA (Lisboa, Portugal) (represented by: M. Lopes Rocha, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Wit-Software, Consultoria e Software para a Internet Móvel, SA (Coimbra, Portugal)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 March 2014 in Case R 1059/2013-1;

               —

               Consider the trade mark application No 10 128 262 GATEWIT fully sustained;

               —

               Order the OHMI and the Opponent to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘GATEWIT’ for services in Class 42 — Community trade mark applicationNo 10 128 262

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Wit-Software, Consultoria e Software para a Internet Móvel, SA

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: The figurative mark containing the word elements ‘wit software’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 38 and 42 as well as the national registration of the company name ‘Wit-Software, Consultoria e Software para a Internet Móvel, SA’

      Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition was rejected

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: The decision of the Opposition Division was annulled and the trade mark applied for rejected

      Pleas in law:

               —

               Violation of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Violation of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 24 September 1996 in Case T-182/94: Ricardo Marx Esser and Casto Del Amo Martinez v. European Parliament (Officials - Representation - Staff Committee - Elections - List of staff members entitled to vote - Elimination, following the ballot, of staff members on leave on personal grounds)

text:
9 . 11 . 96           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 336/27
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              Communities ( Agent: Ana Maria Alves Vieira ) —
                   of 24 September 1996                              application for annulment of the Commission's decision of
                                                                     8 August 1994 not to accept the applicant's candidature for
in Case T-l 82/94 : Ricardo Marx Esser and Casto Del Amo
                                                                     the post of head of the Commission 's delegation to
             Martinez v. European Parliament ( 1 )                   Kazakhstan and, consequently, annulment of the decision to
(Officials   — Representation — Staff Committee —                    appoint another candidate to that post, and a claim for
Elections — List of staff members entitled to vote —                 damages — the Court of First Instance ( Fourth Chamber ),
Elimination, following the ballot, ofstaffmembers on leave           composed of K. Lenaerts , President, P. Lindh and J. D.
                    on personal grounds)                             Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for the
                           96/C 336/57 )                             Registrar, gave a judgment on 2 October 1996 , the operative
                                                                     part of which is as follows :
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                     1 . the Commission 's decision of 8 August 1994 not to
                                                                         accept the applicant 's candidature for the post ofhead of
In Case T-l 82/94 : Ricardo Marx Esser and Casto Del Amo                 the Commission 's delegation to Kazakhstan is annulled,
Martinez, officials of the European Parliament, respectively             together with its decision of 8 August 1994 to appoint
residing at Luxembourg, and at Sandweiler ( Luxembourg ),                Mr K to that post;
represented by Georges Vandersanden , of the Brussels Bar,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of           2 . the remainder of the application is dismissed;
Fiduciaire Myson Sari , 1 Rue Glesener, v. European
Parliament ( Agents : Manfred Peter and Alex Bonn ) —                3 . the Commission is ordered to pay the costs , including
application for annulment of the elections to the Staff                  those relating to the procedure for interim relief.
Committee of the Secretariat of the European Parliament,
held on 21 to 27 May 1993 — the Court of First Instance
( Third Chamber ), composed of: C. P. Briët, President, and          (') OJ No C 370 , 24 . 12 . 1994 .
B. Vesterdorf and A. Potocki , Judges ; J. Palacio Gonzalez,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
24 September 1996 , in which it:
1 . declares that there is no need to give a ruling on the
     applications for measures of inquiry submitted by the
     applicants;                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 8 October 1996
2 . annuls the decision of the President of the European             in Joined Cases T-24/93 , T-25/93 , T-26/93 and T-28/93 ,
     Parliament of 3 February 1 994 rejecting the applicants '       Compagnie Maritime Beige Transports SA and Others v.
     complaint and refusing to annul the electoral                          Commission of the European Communities (')
     proceedings in issue;
                                                                     (Competition — International maritime transport — Liner
                                                                     conferences — Regulation (EEC) No 4056/86 — Effect on
3 . orders the Parliament to pay the costs.
                                                                     trade — Collective dominantposition — Implementation of
                                                                     an agreement providing for an exclusive right — Fighting
(') OJ No C 174, 25 . 6 . 1994 .                                     ships — Loyalty rebates — Fines — Assessment criteria)
                                                                                ( 96/C 336/59 )
                                                                          (Languages of the case: Dutch, English , German)
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             In Joined Cases T-24/93 , Compagnie Maritime Beige
                       of 2 October 1996                             Transports SA and Compagnie Maritime Beige SA,
                                                                     established at Antwerp ( Belgium ), represented by Michel
in Case T-356/94 : Sergio Vecchi v. Commission of the                Waelbroeck and Denis Waelbroeck, of the Brussels Bar, and
                  European Communities (*)                           by Aurelio Pappalardo , of the Trapani Bar, with an address
 (Officials — Notice of vacancy — Manifest error — Misuse            for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest
    of powers — Statement of reasons — Admissibility)                Arendt, 34 Rue Philippe II v. Commission of the European
                          ( 96/C 336/58 )                            Communities ( Agents, during the written procedure , Bernd
                                                                     Langeheine and Richard Lyal and , at the hearing, Richard
                                                                     Lyal, Paul Nemitz and Berend Jan Drijber ), supported by
                (Language of the case: French)                        Grimaldi , established at Palermo ( Italy ), and Cobelfret,
                                                                     established at Antwerp ( Belgium ), represented by Mark
 In Case T-356/94 : Sergio Vecchi, an official of the                 Clough, Barrister, with an address for service in
 Commission of the European Communities, residing at                  Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31
 Overijse ( Belgium ), represented by Georges Vandersanden            Grand-Rue ; T-25/93 , Dafra-Lines A/S, established at
 and Laure Levi, both of the Brussels Bar, with an address for        Copenhagen , represented by Michel Waelbroeck and Denis
 service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson            Waelbroeck, of the Brussels Bar, and by Aurelio
 Sari, 1 Rue Glesener v. Commission of the European                   Pappalardo, of the Trapani Bar, with an address for service


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 7 December 2001 in Case T-192/01 R: Lior GEIE v Commission of the European Communities (Procedure for interim relief — Payment under a contract — Interim measures — Urgency)

text:
20.4.2002                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 97/11
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                for service in Luxembourg, v Commission of the European
                                                                           Communities (Agent: H. van Lier) — application for an order
                         of 23 January 2002                                requiring the Commission to pay the sum of 68 070 EUR in
                                                                           the context of ALTENER-AGORES contract No X-
in Case T-386/00 Margarida Gonçalves v European Parlia-                    VII/4.1030/Z/99-085, together with interest at the Belgian
                               ment (1)                                    statutory rate applying from 23 July 2001, to be paid within
                                                                           eight days from delivery of the decision to be given, or in
(Officials of the European Communities — Competition                       default to pay a periodic penalty of 100 EUR for each day’s
notice — Non-admission to a competition — Consistency                      delay — the President of the Court of First Instance made an
between pleas put forward during the administrative proce-                 order on 7 December 2001, the operative part of which is as
dure and those set out in the application — Admissibility —                follows:
Statement of reasons — Administration’s duty to have
regard for the interests of officials and the principle of sound           1.    The application for interim measures is dismissed.
                           administration)
                                                                           2.    The costs are reserved.
                           (2002/C 97/22)
                     (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-386/00, Margarida Gonçalves, former member of
the temporary staff, residing in Brussels, represented by                  Action brought on 24 January 2002 by Falk-Ulrich von
L. Tinti, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg,                           Hoff against the European Parliament
against European Parliament (Agents: J.F. De Wachter and
D. Moore) — application to annul the decisions of the selection                                       (Case T-13/02)
board rejecting the application of the applicant in internal
competition B/172, establishing the list of suitable candidates                                       (2002/C 97/24)
and all decisions taken by the defendant on the basis of such
decisions, and for compensation for the pecuniary and non-
pecuniary damage allegedly suffered as a result of those                                      (Language of the case: German)
decisions, — the Court of First Instance (Single Judge: M. Vila-
ras); Registrar: J. Plingers, Administrator, has given a judgment
on 23 January 2002, the operative part of which is as follows:             An action against the European Parliament was brought before
                                                                           the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
1.    The application is dismissed.                                        24 January 2002 by Falk-Ulrich von Hoff, of Berlin (Germany),
                                                                           represented by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer.
2.    The parties shall bear their own costs.
(1) OJ 2001 C 61.                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           —     annul the European Parliament’s decision of 17 April
                                                                                2001;
                                                                           —     order the European Parliament to pay to the applicant
                                                                                the installation allowance amounting to two months’
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
                                                                                salary, together with interest at the rate of 8 % from the
                             INSTANCE
                                                                                date of the request (15 March);
                        of 7 December 2001                                 —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
in Case T-192/01 R: Lior GEIE v Commission of the
                      European Communities
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
(Procedure for interim relief — Payment under a contract —
                  Interim measures — Urgency)
                                                                           In the context of the transfer of the liaison centre of the
                                                                           European People’s Party from Bonn to Berlin, the applicant,
                           (2002/C 97/23)                                  whose place of employment was Brussels and who took over
                                                                           as head of the liaison centre, was moved to Berlin. He applied
                     (Language of the case: French)                        for the grant of an installation allowance pursuant to Article 5
                                                                           of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations. The institution refused
                                                                           that application on the ground that the applicant had returned
In Case T-192/01 R: Lior GEIE, established in Brussels, repre-             to live with his family, who had already been residing in Berlin
sented by V. Marien and J. Choucroun, lawyers, with an address             prior to the transfer of the applicant.


title: Action brought on 5 December 1997 by SPRL Ecole de Maîtrise Automobile against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-303/97)

text:
28.3.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 94/25
Ð the public contract appears to have been awarded                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
    after 14 April 1997, the date on which the deadline
    for valid tenders expired, without the tenderers having
    been asked to confirm whether or not their price                 Ð order the Council and/or the Commission to pay
    remained the same, and                                               damages in accordance with Schedule 1 to the
                                                                         application,
Ð subject to an examination of the administrative file at
    a later stage, it must be considered to have been
    established that the successful tender is not in                 Ð order the Council and/or the Commission to pay the
    conformity with the whole of the obligations set out in              applicant's costs.
    the special contract documents, which necessarily
    vitiates the decision to accept that tender.                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                     The applicant complains of the damaging consequences
                                                                     arising from the fact that, unlike the position with respect
                                                                     to SLOM I and II milk producers, he, as a SLOM III milk
Action brought on 5 December 1997 by SPRL Ecole de                   producer, has not been compensated for the absence of
Maîtrise Automobile against the Commission of the                    quota prior to the introduction of SLOM quota.
                   European Communities
                       (Case T-303/97)
                                                                     The pleas in law and main arguments raised by the
                         (98/C 94/64)                                applicant are similar to those raised in Cases T-195/94
                                                                     and T-202/94 Quiller and Heusmann v. Council and
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                     Commission (1) and T-10/96 Lay v. Council and
An action against the Commission of the European                     Commission (2).
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 5 December                   In relation to the five-year limitation period under
1997 by SPRL Ecole de Maîtrise Automobile, established               Article 43 of the Protocol on the (EC) Statute the Court of
in Luxembourg, represented by Luc Van Damme, of the                  Justice, the applicant contends that it only began to run
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at           from the date when that Court held that the non-
the Chambers of Farida Chorfi, 8 Rue des Girondins.                  allocation of quota to the SLOM III group was illegal.
                                                                     Alternatively, the failure to provide for a SLOM III quota
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                     constituted a continuing breach up to the date of its
                                                                     introduction in 1993 and the Council and the Commission
Ð annul the Commission's decision of unknown date
                                                                     were therefore guilty of a continuing breach of the
    awarding the contract to train the Commission's
                                                                     applicant's legitimate expectations from the end of the
    drivers to the Jesco Auto Training School,
                                                                     non-marketing scheme until that date.
Ð annul the rejection implied thereby of the applicant's
    tender.                                                          (1) OJ C 188, 9.7.1994, p. 16, and
                                                                         OJ C 218, 6.8.1994, p. 22.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                  (2) OJ C 133, 4.5.1996, p. 23.
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to
those relied upon in Case T-302/97.
                                                                     Action brought on 8 December 1997 by Jimmy Hull
                                                                     against the Council of the European Union and the
Action brought on 8 December 1997 by W. J. C. Hilsdon                         Commission of the European Communities
against the Council of the European Union and the                                           (Case T-305/97)
         Commission of the European Communities
                       (Case T-304/97)                                                        (98/C 94/66)
                         (98/C 94/65)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
               (Language of the case: English)
An action against the Council of the European Union and              An action against the Council of the European Union and
the Commission of the European Communities was                       the Commission of the European Communities was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European           brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 8 December 1997 by W. J. C. Hilsdon,                  Communities on 8 December 1997 by Jimmy Hull,
represented by Rory Hutchings, Solicitor, of Messrs                  represented by Rory Hutchings, Solicitor, of Messrs
Dawson & Co, of 2 New Square, Lincoln's Inn, London                  Dawson & Co., of 2 New Square, Lincoln's Inn, London
WC2A 3RZ.                                                            WC2A 3RZ.


C 278/34             EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                  5.9.98
      Removal from the register of Case C-403/97 (1)                   Removal from the register of Case C-406/97 (1)
                        (98/C 278/71)                                                     (98/C 278/74)
By order of 25 May 1998 the President of the Court of            By order of 15 June 1998 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the              Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-403/97: Commission           removal from the register of Case C-406/97: Commission
of the European Communities v. Federal Republic of               of the European Communities v. Grand Duchy of
Germany.                                                         Luxembourg.
(1) OJ C 26, 24.1.1998.
                                                                 (1) OJ C 41, 7.2.1998.
      Removal from the register of Case C-291/95 (1)                   Removal from the register of Case C-411/97 (1)
                        (98/C 278/72)                                                     (98/C 278/75)
By order of 15 June 1998 the President of the Court of           By order of 16 June 1998 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the              Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-291/95: Kingdom of           removal from the register of Case C-411/97: Commission
Belgium v. Commission of the European Communities.               of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium.
(1) OJ C 268, 14.10.1995.
                                                                 (1) OJ C 55, 20.2.1998.
      Removal from the register of Case C-155/97 (1)                   Removal from the register of Case C-105/97 (1)
                        (98/C 278/73)                                                     (98/C 278/76)
By order of 15 June 1998 the President of the Court of           By order of 25 June 1998 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the              Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-155/97: Commission           removal from the register of Case C-105/97 (reference for
of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium.               a preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
                                                                 Trento): Leonardo Gulli v. Ente Poste Italiane.
(1) OJ C 181, 14.6.1997.
                                                                 (1) OJ C 142, 10.5.1997.