title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 28 April 1998 in Case C-120/95: (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil Arbitral des Assurances Sociales): Nicolas Decker v. Caisse de Maladie des Employés Privés (Free movement of goods - Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty - Reimbursement of medical expenses incurred in another Member State - Prior authorisation of the competent institution - Purchase of spectacles)

text:
C 209/4               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       4.7.98
Gloria Calvo Díaz) and Kingdom of the Netherlands                    Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate General; H. von Holstein,
(Agent: Marc Fierstra) Ð appeal against the judgment of              Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities              on 2 April 1998, in which it has ruled:
(Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 28 September
1995 in Case T-95/94 Sytraval and Brink's France v.
Commission [1995] ECR II-2651, seeking to have that                  The first paragraph of Article 95 of the EC Treaty
judgment set aside, the other parties to the proceedings             precludes an excise duty which forms part of a national
being Chambre Syndicale Nationale des Entreprises de                 system of taxation on sources of energy from being levied
Transport de Fonds et Valeurs (Sytraval) and Brink's                 on electricity of domestic origin at rates which vary
France SARL Ð the Court, composed of G. C. Rodríguez                 according to its method of production while being levied
Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), H.                     on imported electricity, whatever its method of
Ragnemalm and M. Wathelet (Presidents of Chambers),                  production, at a flat rate which, although lower than the
G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G.                   highest rate applicable to electricity of domestic origin,
Kapteyn, J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet,            leads, if only in certain cases, to higher taxation being
G. Hirsch, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges, C. O. Lenz,                 imposed on imported electricity.
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
judgment on 2 April 1998 in which it:                                (1) OJ C 247 of 24.8.1996.
1. Dismisses the appeal.
2. Orders       the    Commission       of    the    European
     Communities, the Federal Republic of Germany, the
     Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic and the                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
     Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear their own costs.                                    of 28 April 1998
                                                                     in Case C-120/95: (reference for a preliminary ruling from
(1) OJ C 16 of 20.1.1996.                                            the Conseil Arbitral des Assurances Sociales): Nicolas
                                                                         Decker v. Caisse de Maladie des EmployeÂs PriveÂs (1)
                                                                     (Free movement of goods Ð Articles 30 and 36 of the EC
                                                                     Treaty Ð Reimbursement of medical expenses incurred in
                                                                     another Member State Ð Prior authorisation of the
                                                                           competent institution Ð Purchase of spectacles)
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                          (98/C 209/07)
                       of 2 April 1998
in Case C-213/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                           (Language of the case: French)
the Uudenmaan Lääninoikeus): proceedings brought by
                      Outokumpu Oy (1)
(Excise duty on electricity Ð Rates of duty varying                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
according to the method of producing electricity of                           published in the European Court Reports)
    domestic origin Ð Flat rate for imported electricity)
                        (98/C 209/06)                                In Case C-120/95: reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                     of the EC Treaty from the Conseil Arbitral des Assurances
                                                                     Sociales    (Social     Insurance     Arbitration     Council)
               (Language of the case: Finnish)                       (Luxembourg) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
                                                                     pending before that tribunal between Nicolas Decker and
                                                                     Caisse de Maladie des EmployeÂs PriveÂs Ð on the
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       interpretation of Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty Ð
         published in the European Court Reports)                    the Court, composed of G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias,
                                                                     President, C. Gulmann and H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur),
                                                                     (Presidents of Chambers), G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho
In Case C-213/96: reference to the Court under Article 177           de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray, D. A. O.
of the EC Treaty from the Uudenmaan Lääninoikeus                     Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and P. Jann, Judges;
(Uusimaa Provincial Administrative Court), Finland, for a            G. Tesauro, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau,
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that            Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
court brought by Outokumpu Oy Ð on the interpretation                judgment on 28 April 1998, in which it has ruled:
of Articles 9, 12 and 95 of the EC Treaty Ð the Court,
composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, C.
Gulmann, H. Ragnemalm and R. Schintgen (Rapporteur)                  Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty preclude national
(Presidents of Chambers), G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho              rules under which a social security institution of a
de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray, D. A. O.                 Member State refuses to reimburse to an insured person
Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann and L. Sevón,           on a flat-rate basis the cost of a pair of spectacles with
 ---pagebreak--- 4.7.98                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 209/5
corrective lenses purchased from an optician established in                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
another Member State, on the ground that prior                                              of 28 April 1998
authorisation is required for the purchase of any medical
product abroad.                                                      in Case C-158/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                     from the Cour de Cassation): Raymond Kohll v. Union
                                                                                des Caisses de Maladie (1)
(1) OJ C 137 of 3.6.1995.
                                                                     (Freedom to provide services Ð Reimbursement of
                                                                     medical expenses incurred in another Member State Ð
                                                                     Prior authorisation of the competent institution Ð Public
                                                                                health Ð Dental treatment)
                                                                                (98/C 209/09)
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                 (Language of the case: French)
                       of 28 April 1998
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
in Case C-118/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                     published in the European Court Reports)
Länsrätten i Dalarnas Län, formerly Länsrätten i Koppar-
bergs Län): Jessica Safir v. Skattemyndigheten i Dalarnas            In Case C-158/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
   Län, formerly Skattemyndigheten i Kopparbergs Län (1)             of the EC Treaty from the Luxembourg Cour de Cassation
                                                                     (Court of Cassation) for a preliminary ruling in the
(Freedom to provide services Ð Free movement of capital
                                                                     proceedings pending before that court between Raymond
Ð Taxation of savings in the form of life assurance Ð
                                                                     Kohll and Union des Caisses de Maladie Ð on the
Legislation of a Member State establishing different tax
                                                                     interpretation of Articles 59 and 60 of the EC Treaty Ð
regimes according to the place of establishment of the
                                                                     the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias,
             undertaking providing the services)
                                                                     President, C. Gulmann, H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur) and
                        (98/C 209/08)                                M. Wathelet (Presidents of Chambers), G. F. Mancini, J. C.
                                                                     Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray,
                                                                     D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann and
               (Language of the case: Swedish)                       L. Sevón, Judges; G. Tesauro, Advocate General;
                                                                     D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the
                                                                     Registrar, has given a judgment on 28 April 1998, in
                                                                     which it has ruled:
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
         published in the European Court Reports)                    Articles 59 and 60 of the EC Treaty preclude national
                                                                     rules under which reimbursement, in accordance with the
                                                                     scale of the State of insurance, of the cost of dental
In Case C-118/96: reference to the Court under Article 177           treatment provided by an orthodontist established in
of the EC Treaty from Länsrätten i Dalarnas Län,                     another Member State is subject to authorisation by the
formerly Länsrätten i Kopparbergs Län (County                        insured person's social security institution.
Administrative Court, County of Kopparberg), Sweden,
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before           (1) OJ C 180 of 22.6.1996.
that court between Jessica Safir and Skattemyndigheten i
Dalarnas Län, formerly Skattemyndigheten i Kopparbergs
Län Ð on the interpretation of Articles 6, 59, 60, 73b
and 73d of the EC Treaty Ð the Court, composed of: G. C.
Rodríguez Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann, H. Ragnemalm,
M. Wathelet and R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers),
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida (Rapporteur),
P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward, J.-P.                                      of 28 April 1998
Puissochet, G. Hirsch and P. Jann, Judges; G. Tesauro,               in Case C-200/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling
Advocate General; H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator,               from the Landgericht Köln): Metronome Musik GmbH v.
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 28 April 1998,                           Music Point Hokamp GmbH (1)
in which it has ruled:
                                                                     (Copyright and related rights Ð Rental and lending right
                                                                                Ð Validity of Directive 92/100/EEC)
Article 59 of the EC Treaty precludes the application of                                     (98/C 209/10)
national legislation relating to the taxation of capital life
assurance such as the legislation in question in the main                          (Language of the case: German)
proceedings.
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
(1) OJ C 158 of 1.6.1996.                                                     published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                     In Case C-200/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                     of the EC Treaty from the Landgericht (Regional Court)


title: Action brought on 2 August 1995 by the European Parliament against the Council of the European Union (Case C-259/95)

text:
23 . 9 . 95           EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 248/9
1956 be regarded as discriminatory within the meaning of                Justice, Queen's Bench Division, of 1 8 July 1 995 , which was
Article 95 of the EC Treaty in relation to vehicles for which           received at the Court Registry on 4 August 1995 , for a
type-approval was given after the Treaty entered into force             preliminary ruling in the case of the Commissioners of
and before 1 January 1978 ?                                             Customs and Excise against DFDS A/S, on the following
                                                                        questions :
                                                                        on the proper interpretation of Council Directive
                                                                        77/388/EC (') on the harmonization of the laws of the
     Action brought on 2 August 1995 by the European                    Member States relating to turnover tax ( the Sixth VAT
   Parliament against the Council of the European Union                 Directive ), and in particular Article 26 thereof, where a tour
                                                                        operator has its headquarters in Member State A but
                        ( Case C-259/95
                                                                        supplies services in the form of package tours to travellers
                           ( 95/C 248/ 18                               through the agency of a company in Member State B:
An action against the Council of the European Union was                 ( a ) in what ( if any ) circumstances is the supply of those
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                           . services by the tour operator taxable in Member
Communities on 2 August 1995 by the European                                    State B ?
Parliament, represented by Christian Pennera , Head of
Division in its Legal Service, and Peter Dyrberg, of the Legal          ( b ) in what ( if any ) circumstances can it be said that the
Service , acting as agents, with an address for service in                      tour operator 'has established [its] business' in Member
Luxembourg at the Secretariat of the European Parliament,                       State B or ' has a fixed establishment from which [it] has
Tower Building, Kirchberg.                                                      provided the services' in Member State B ?
The European Parliament claims that the Court should :                  (') Council Directive 77/388/EEC ( Sixth Council Directive ) of
                                                                              17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member
— annul Council Decision No 95/ 184/EC of 22 May                              States relating to turnover taxes — common system of value
     1995 (') amending Decision No 3092/94/EC                                 added tax : uniform basis of assessment ( OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 .
     introducing a Community system of information on                         1977, p. 1 ).
     home and leisure accidents,
— order the defendant to pay the costs .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
Lack of legal basis :                                                   Action brought on 4 August 1995 by the Commission of the
                                                                        European Communities against the Federal Republic of
— the reference to Article 169 of the 1994 Act of Accession                                              Germany
     is inappropriate in this case because that provision does                                      ( Case C-262/95 )
     not permit legislative amendments to be made after the                                           ( 95/C 248/20 )
     entry into force of the Accession Treaty on 1 January
     1995 .
                                                                        An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
— Article 169 of the Act of Accession cannot permit the                 brought before the Court of Justice of the European
     Council unilaterally to amend and modify an act jointly             Communities on 4 August 1995 by the Commission of the
     adopted by the Parliament and the Council in                       European Communities, represented by Gotz zur Hausen,
     accordance with Article 189b of the EC Treaty . To apply           Legal Adviser, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
     it in the manner in which the Council did in adopting the          the office of Mr Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre C 254 ,
     contested Decision effectively undermines the                      Kirchberg.
     paramountcy of the EC Treaty and disregards the rule
     laid down in Article 9 of the Act of Accession .                   The applicant claims that the Court should :
 (') OJ No L 120, 31 . 5 . 1995 , p . 36 .                               ( 1 ) declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
                                                                                time-limits all the measures necessary in order to
                                                                                comply with the following Directives, in particular
                                                                                Article 3 of each of them, the Ferderal Republic of
                                                                                Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC
 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of                         Treaty:
Justice, Queen's Bench Division, by order of that court of
 18 July 1995 , in the case of the Commissioners of Customs                      — Council Directive 82/176/EEC (*) of 22 March
                 and Excise against DFDS A/S                                         1982 on limit values and quality objectives for
                                                                                mercury discharges by the chlor-alkali electrolysis
                         ( Case C-260/95 )
                                                                                industry,
                            ( 95/C 248/ 19 )
                                                                                — Council Directive 83/513/EEC ( 2 ) of 26 September
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                              1983 on limit values and quality objectives for
 European Communities by an order of the High Court of                               cadmium discharges,


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 June 2003 in Case C-229/00: Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 89/105/EEC — Failure to apply the procedure prescribed in Article 6 of that directive to decisions determining the categories of medicinal products qualifying for higher-rate cover — Failure to provide objective and verifiable grounds for negative decisions)

text:
2.8.2003                EN                              Official Journal of the European Union                                                  C 184/1
                                                                             I
                                                                       (Information)
                                                          COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                                   COURT OF JUSTICE
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                          The fact that the authorities of a Member State did not ban a
                                                                                demonstration in circumstances such as those of the main case is not
                                                                                incompatible with Articles 30 and 34 of the EC Treaty (now, after
                           of 12 June 2003                                       amendment, Articles 28 EC and 29 EC), read together with Article 5
                                                                                of the EC Treaty (now Article 10 EC).
in Case C-112/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                                (1) OJ C 163, 10.6.2000.
the Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck): Eugen Schmidberger,
Internationale Transporte und Planzüge v Republic of
                              Austria (1)
(Free movement of goods — Restriction resulting from
actions of individuals — Obligations of the Member States
— Decision not to prohibit a demonstration by environ-
mental protesters which resulted in the complete closure of
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
the Brenner motorway for almost 30 hours — Justification
— Fundamental rights — Freedom of expression and
      freedom of assembly — Principle of proportionality)                                                   (Sixth Chamber)
                           (2003/C 184/01)                                                                  of 12 June 2003
                                                                                in Case C-229/00: Commission of the European Commu-
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                nities v Republic of Finland (1)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in        (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
                      the European Court Reports)                                89/105/EEC — Failure to apply the procedure prescribed in
                                                                                Article 6 of that directive to decisions determining the
                                                                                categories of medicinal products qualifying for higher-rate
                                                                                cover — Failure to provide objective and verifiable grounds
In Case C-112/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234                                               for negative decisions)
EC by the Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck (Austria) for a preli-
minary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
between Eugen Schmidberger, Internationale Transporte und                                                   (2003/C 184/02)
Planzüge and Republic of Austria, on the interpretation of
Articles 30, 34 and 36 of the EC Treaty (now, after amend-                                           (Language of the case: Finnish)
ment, Articles 28 EC, 29 EC and 30 EC) read together with
Article 5 of the EC Treaty (now Article 10 EC), and on the
conditions for liability of a Member State for damage caused to                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in
individuals by a breach of Community law, the Court,                                                   the European Court Reports)
composed        of:     G.C.     Rodríguez         Iglesias,    President,
J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet and R. Schintgen (Rapporteur)
(Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward,
P. Jann, V. Skouris, F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J.                     In Case C-229/00, Commission of the European Communities
N. Cunha Rodrigues and A. Rosas, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advo-                      (Agents: I. Koskinen et H. Støvlbæk) v Republic of Finland
cate General; H.A. Rühl (Principal Administrator), Registrar, has                (Agents: T. Pynnä and E. Bygglin): Application for a declaration
given a judgment on 12 June 2003, in which it has ruled:                         that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative
 ---pagebreak--- C 184/2                 EN                            Official Journal of the European Union                                                  2.8.2003
provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 89/105/                 (Agents: initially J.-F. Dobelle and D. Colas, and, subsequently,
EEC of 21 December 1988 relating to the transparency of                       the latter and G. de Bergues): Application for a declaration
measures regulating the prices of medicinal products for human                that, by failing correctly to transpose Articles 2(a) and 3(2), (3)
use and their inclusion in the scope of national health insurance             and (4) of Council Directive 90/313/EEC of 7 June 1990 on
systems (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 8), in particular by not applying the               the freedom of access to information on the environment (OJ
prescribed procedure to decisions determining a category of                   1990 L 158, p. 56), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
special cover and, with regard to the prescribed obligations, by              obligations under that directive and under the third paragraph
not providing the applicant with a sufficient statement of                    of Article 189 of the EC Treaty (now the third paragraph of
reasons based on objective and verifiable criteria in the case of             Article 249 EC), the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
negative decisions, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its          J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen
obligations under that directive and in particular Article 6                  (Rapporteur), V. Skouris, F. Macken and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues,
thereof, the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:                              Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal
J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann,                       Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
V. Skouris, F. Macken (Rapporteur) and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues,                  26 June 2003, in which it:
Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy
Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 June 2003, in which it:
1.    Declares that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and                1.    Declares that:
      administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council
      Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December 1988 relating to the
      transparency of measures regulating the prices of medicinal
      products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of
      national health insurance systems as regards the decisions                    by restricting the obligation to supply information relating to
      establishing the categories of medicinal products subject to a                the environment to ‘administrative documents’ within the
      higher rate of health insurance cover, the Republic of Finland                meaning of Law No 78-753 of 17 July 1978 establishing
      has failed to fulfil its obligations under the first and second               various measures to improve relations between the administrative
      subparagraphs of Article 6 of that directive;                                 authorities and the public and various administrative, social and
                                                                                fiscal provisions;
2.    Dismisses the remainder of the action;
3.    Orders each party to bear its own costs.                                      by providing, as one of the grounds for refusing to supply such
                                                                                information, that the consultation or provision of the document
(1) OJ C 247, 26.8.2000.                                                            would prejudice, ‘generally, secrets protected by legislation’;
                                                                                by failing to include in the national legislation a provision
                                                                                under which information relating to the environment is to be
                                                                                supplied in part where it is possible to separate out information
                                                                                on items concerning the interests referred to in Article 3(2) of
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                             Council Directive 90/313/EEC of 7 June 1990 on the freedom
                                                                                of access to information on the environment, which may
                           (Sixth Chamber)                                          accordingly justify a refusal, and
                           of 26 June 2003
                                                                                by failing to provide, in the case of an implied refusal of a
in Case C-233/00: Commission of the European Commu-                                 request for information relating to the environment, that the
                    nities v French Republic (1)                                    public authorities are required to provide the reasons for that
                                                                                refusal automatically and at the latest within two months of the
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive                        submission of the initial request, the French Republic has failed
90/313/EEC — Freedom of access to information on the                                to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2(a) and 3(1), (2) and
     environment — Incomplete or incorrect transposition)                           (4) of that directive;
                           (2003/C 184/03)
                                                                              2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;
                     (Language of the case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in
                      the European Court Reports)                             3.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                              (1) OJ C 233, 12.8.2000.
In Case C-233/00, Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: G. zur Hausen and J.-F. Pasquier) v French Republic


title: Case T-173/09: Action brought on 5 May 2009 — Z v Commission

text:
               18.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 167/15

         Action brought on 5 May 2009 — Z v Commission
   (Case T-173/09)
   2009/C 167/30
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Z (Hannover, Germany) (represented by: C. Grau and N. Jäger, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Forms of order sought

               —

               Grant the applicant, through acces to the file in Case COMP/39406 — ‘Marine Hoses’ — in particular through the provision of a copy of the Commission Decision of 28 January 2009, which imposed a fine on Dunlop Oil & Marine/ContiTech AG/Continental AG for their alleged participation in the marine hoses cartel between 1986 and 2007, information about whether it is identified by name in that decision and — if so — in what context the identification of the applicant takes place, in particular the extent to which relevant cartel- or criminal law representations relating to the applicant are included in the Commission decision;

               —

               Remove, after the granting of access to the file, any references, yet to be defined, identifying the applicant by name, in particular relevant cartel- and criminal law representations relating to the applicant in the Commission Decision of 28 January 2009, which imposed a fine on Dunlop Oil & Marine/ContiTech AG/Continental AG for their alleged participation in the marine hoses cartel between 1986 and 2007;

               —

               Remove the identification by name of the applicant and any references to the applicant in the version of the decision to be published;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant contests the Commission’s refusal of 5 March 2009 to grant it access to the documents on the file in Case COMP/39.406 — ‘Marine Hoses’. The applicant also requests the removal of possible references to itself in the Commission decision of 28 January 2009 in this case and the removal of references to itself in the version of the decision to be published.
   The applicant asserts in support of the action that the right to be granted access to the file and the removal of any references to the applicant are based on the infringement of the applicant’s fundamental procedural rights, namely the right to a fair hearing and the right of access to the file, and on the principle of the presumption of innocence. A right of access to the file is based also on the right of public access to Commission documents under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1).

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).


13 . 5 . 95      | EN |              Official Journal of the European Communities               No C 118 /7
                                                             III
                                                          (Notices)
                                 EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
                                        COURT OF JUSTICE
                     OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
                    NOTICE CONCERNING THE ORGANIZATION OF AN OPEN COMPETITION
                                                      (95/C 118 /08)
            The Secretariat of the European Parliament and the Court of Justice of the European
            Communities are organizing Open Competition
            EUR/C/60 — Swedish-language TYPISTS O ;
                            (career bracket C 5-4)
            ( ) OJ No C 118 A, 13. 5. 1995 (Swedish edidon).


title: Case T-348/12: Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2014  — Globosat Programadora v OHIM — Sport TV Portugal (SPORT TV INTERNACIONAL) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark SPORT TV INTERNACIONAL — Earlier national figurative mark SPORTV — Relative ground for refusal — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 and Rule 22 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)

text:
               28.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/19

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2014 — Globosat Programadora v OHIM — Sport TV Portugal (SPORT TV INTERNACIONAL)
   (Case T-348/12) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark SPORT TV INTERNACIONAL - Earlier national figurative mark SPORTV - Relative ground for refusal - Proof of use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 and Rule 22 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95))
   2014/C 129/24
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Globosat Programadora Ltda (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil) (represented by: S. Micallef, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Sport TV Portugal, SA (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: B. Braga da Cruz and J. Pimenta, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 May 2012 (case R 2079/2010-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Globosat Programadora Ltda and Sport TV Portugal, SA.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Globosat Programadora Ltda to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 311, 13.10.2012.


title: Case F-109/13: Action brought on 4th November 2013 — ZZ v ENISA

text:
               18.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 15/21

         Action brought on 4th November 2013 — ZZ v ENISA
   (Case F-109/13)
   2014/C 15/33
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Levi and A. Tymen, lawyers)

      Defendant: Agence européenne chargée de la sécurité des réseaux et de l’information (ENISA)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   The annulment of the Decision terminating the Applicant’s contract of employment and as a consequence, to order to the Defendant her reintegration, the payment of her financial benefits since the entering into effect of the contract termination until her reintegration, with the deduction of her possible income for the same period, increased by late interests calculated at the rate of the European Central Bank plus 3 points, and, finally, to order the Defendant to compensate the moral prejudice of the Applicant.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 31 January 2013 terminating the Applicant’s contract of employment;

               —

               annul the decision of 22 August 2013 rejecting the Applicant’s complaint;

               —

               as a consequence, to order to reintegrate the Applicant and to pay her financial benefits since the entering into effect of the contract termination until her reintegration, with the deduction of her possible income for the same period, increased by late interests calculated at the rate of the European Central Bank plus 3 points;

               —

               to compensate the moral prejudice of the Applicant evaluated, ex aequo et bono, at 10 000 euros;

               —

               order to the Defendant to bear the entire costs.


title: Case T-499/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 October 2006 — Hammarplast v OHIM — Steninge Slott (STENINGE SLOTT) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark STENINGE SLOTT — Earlier word mark STENINGE KERAMIK — Likelihood of confusion)

text:
               16.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 310/15

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 October 2006 — Hammarplast v OHIM — Steninge Slott (STENINGE SLOTT)
   (Case T-499/04) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark STENINGE SLOTT - Earlier word mark STENINGE KERAMIK - Likelihood of confusion)
   (2006/C 310/29)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Hammarplast AB (Tingsryd, Sweden) (represented by: R. Almaraz Palmero, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court of First Instance: Steninge Slott AB (Märast, Sweden) (represented by: M. Björkenfeldt, lawyer)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 October 2004 (Case R 394/2003-2) concerning the opposition filed by the holder of the national trade mark STENINGE KERAMIK against registration of the Community trade mark STENINGE SLOTT.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 57 of 05.03.2005.


title: Case C-106/08: Action brought on 6 March 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               24.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 128/23

         Action brought on 6 March 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-106/08)
   (2008/C 128/41)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Zavvos and N. Yerrell)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic
   Form of order sought
   The Court is asked to:

               —

               declare that, by failing to take all the measures necessary to ensure that vehicles put into service for the first time from 1 May 2006 must be fitted with recording equipment in accordance with the requirements of Annex IB to Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 and to issue the corresponding driver cards, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1)(a) and (2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2135/98, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006;

               —

               order Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Article 2(2) of the Regulation states that ‘Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that they are able to issue driver cards at the latest on the 20th day following the day of publication of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006’.
   Regulation No 561/2006 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 11 April 2006 and it follows that the mandatory requirement of installation of a digital tachograph in all vehicles put into circulation in the European Union for the first time became applicable on 1 May 2006.
   The Hellenic Republic responded to the Commission's reasoned opinion on 30 May 2007 and explained to the Commission that, taking into account every possible delay completing the procedure, issue of the digital tachograph cards to drivers would be possible by the end of 2007.
   The Hellenic Republic responded to the Commission's reasoned opinion on 30 May 2007 and explained to the Commission that, taking into account every possible delay in completing the procedure, issue of the digital tachograph cards to drivers would be possible by the end of 2007.
   The Commission asks the Court to order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Divisional Court, Queen's Bench Division, by order of that court of 31 July 1997, in the case of The Queen against The Licensing Authority Established by the Medicines Act 1968 (acting by the Medicines Control Agency), ex parte: 1) Rhône-Poulenc Rorer Ltd 2) May & Baker Ltd. (Case C-94/98)

text:
C 166/8               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                     30.5.98
laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (1) (the                   continue to manufacture and market product X
Trade Mark Directive') that Member States are precluded                       in Member States other than Member State B?
from introducing or maintaining a legal position whereby
trade mark rights are exhausted where the trade mark is            2. To what extent is it relevant to the answer to
marketed outside the Community under that mark?                         Question 1 that:
(1) OJ L 40 of 11.2.1989, p. 1.                                         (i)    the marketing authorisation for medicinal
                                                                               product X ceased to have effect in Member State
                                                                               B as a result of voluntary surrender on the part
                                                                               of the person to whom it had been granted; and/
                                                                               or
                                                                        (ii)   the formulation of medicinal product Y was
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Divisional                           developed and introduced in order to provide a
Court, Queen's Bench Division, by order of that court of                       benefit to public health which medicinal product
31 July 1997, in the case of The Queen against The                             X (manufactured according to a different
Licensing Authority Established by the Medicines Act                           formulation) does not provide; and/or
1968 (acting by the Medicines Control Agency), ex parte:
     1) Rhône-Poulenc Rorer Ltd 2) May & Baker Ltd.                     (iii) that benefit to public health would not be
                       (Case C-94/98)                                          achieved if product X and product Y are both on
                                                                               the market in Member State B at the same time;
                        (98/C 166/12)
                                                                               and/or
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  (iv) the differences between the formulations of
European Communities by an order of the Divisional                             medicinal product X and medicinal product Y
Court, Queen's Bench Division, of 31 July 1997, which                          are such that neither product may lawfully be
was received at the Court Registry on 1 April 1998, for a                      marketed under the marketing authorisation
preliminary ruling in the case of The Queen against The                        applicable to the other; and/or
Licensing Authority Established by the Medicines Act
1968 (acting by the Medicines Control Agency), ex parte:                (v)    the competent authority possesses the relevant
1) Rhône-Poulenc Rorer Ltd 2) May & Baker Ltd, on the                          data required under Directive 65/65/CEE in
following questions:                                                           relation to both product X and product Y; and/or
                                                                        (vi) the competent authority considers that the
1. In a case where medicinal product X is sought to be                         prohibition on imports of product X from
    imported from Member State A into Member State B,                          Member State A would have the effect of
    is it permissible for the person who proposes to place                     partitioning the market; and/or
    the imported product upon the market in Member
    State B to seek and obtain a marketing authorisation                (vii) the competent authority considers that there are
    from the competent authority in Member State B                             no grounds within Article 36 of the EC Treaty
    without complying with the requirements of Council                         which would justify a prohibition on imports
    Directive 65/65/EEC (1) (as amended) if:                                   and sales of product X?
    (i)   medicinal product X is the subject of a marketing        (1) Council Directive 65/65/EEC of 26 January 1965 on the
          authorisation granted in Member State A and was              approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or
          the subject of a marketing authorisation which               administrative action relating to proprietary medicinal
          has ceased to have effect in Member State B; and             products (OJ 22 of 9.2.1965, p. 369 (SE SER1 (65Ð66)
                                                                       p. 20)).
    (ii) medicinal product X has the same active
          ingrediens and therapeutic effect as medicinal
          product Y, but is not manufactured according to
          the same formulation as medicinal product Y; and
    (iii) medicinal product Y is the subject of a marketing        Appeal brought on 3 April 1998 by Edouard Dubois et
          authorisation granted in Member State B, but is          Fils SA against the judgment delivered on 29 January
          not the subject of a marketing authorisation             1998 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance
          granted in Member State A; and                           of the European Communities in Case T-113/96 between
                                                                   Edouard Dubois et Fils SA, on the one hand, and Council
    (iv) the marketing authorisations referred to in (i) and       of the European Union and Commission of the European
          (iii) above were granted to different members of                             Communities, on the other
          the same group of companies and the                                              (Case C-95/98 P)
          manufacturers of medicinal products X and Y are
                                                                                (98/C 166/13)
          also members of that group of companies; and
    (v) companies within the same group as the holder of           An appeal against the judgment delivered on 29 January
          the marketing authorisation for product X                1998 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance


11 . 11 . 95          EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                           No C 299/ 1
                                                                      I
                                                              (Information)
                                                   COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                          COURT OF JUSTICE
                                Swearing of the oath by the new member of the Court of Justice
                                                             ( 95/C 299/01 )
             Mr Melchior Wathelet, appointed on 13 September 1995 judge at the Court of Justice of the
             European Communities by decision of the representatives of the governments of the Member States
             of the European Communities ('), took the oath before the Court of Justice on 18 September
             1995 .
             (') OJ No L 233 , 30 . 9 . 1995 , p . 88 .
             Swearing of the oath by the new members of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                              Communities
                                                             ( 95 /C 299/02 )
             Mr Andre Potocki and Mr Rui Manuel Gens de Moura Ramos, appointed on 17 and 26 July 1995
             judges at the Court of First Instance of the European Communities by decisions of the representatives
             of the governments of the Member States of the European Communities ( 1 ) ( 2 ), took the oath before
             the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 18 September 1995 .
             (') OJ No L 172 , 22 . 7 . 1995 , p . 23 .
             ( 2 ) OJ No L 188 , 9 . 8 . 1995 , p . 7 .
                            Decisions adopted by the Court at its meeting on 19 September 1995
                                                              ( 95 /C 299/03 )
             The Court of Justice of the European Communities adopted the following decisions at its meeting on
              19 September 1995 :
             Attachment of Mr Wathelet
             The Court has decided to attach Mr Wathelet to the First and Fifth Chambers .
 ---pagebreak--- No C 299/2          EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                11 . 11 . 95
           Appointment of the Presidents of the Chambers
           In accordance with Article 10 (1 ) of the Rules of Procedure the Court has appointed for a period of
           one year starting on 7 October 1995 :
           — Mr Edward as President of the First and Fifth Chambers,
           — Mr Hirsch as President of the Second Chamber,
           — Mr Puissochet as President of the Third Chamber ,
           — Mr Kakouris as President of the Fourth and Sixth Chambers .
           Composition of the Chambers
           1 . The composition of the Chambers for the same period has been determined as follows :
               First Chamber
               Mr Edward, President of the Chamber,
               Mr Jann , Mr . Sevón and Mr Wathelet, Judges .
               Second Chamber
               Mr Hirsch, President of the Chamber,
               Mr Mancini and Mr Schockweiler , Judges .
               Third Chamber
               Mr Puissochet, President of the Chamber,
               Mr Moitinho de Almeida and Mr Gulmann , Judges .
               Fourth Chamber
               Mr Kakouris, President of the Chamber ,
               Mr Kapteyn, Mr Murray and Mr Ragnemalm , Judges .
               Fifth Chamber
               Mr Edward, President of the Chamber,
               Mr Puissochet, Mr Mointinho de Almeida , Mr Gulmann, Mr Jann , Mr Sevón and Mr Wathelet,
               Judges .
               Sixth Chamber
               Mr Kakouris, President of the Chamber,
               Mr Hirsch , Mr Mancini , Mr Schockweiler, Mr Kapteyn, Mr Murray and Mr Ragnemalm ,
               Judges .
           2 . For each case assigned to them , the First Chamber and the Fourth Chamber ( to which four judges
               are attached ) shall be composed of the President of the Chamber, the Judge-Rapporteur, and a
               third judge designated in turn from a list of the judges in order of seniority . At each general
               meeting the starting point on that list shall be moved down one name .
           3 . For each case assigned to a large Chamber the five judges who are to sit shall be determined on the
               basis of a list drawn up for the judicial year comprising all the judges of the Chamber, except the
               President, in the following order :
               ( a ) the judges of the small Chamber to which four judges are attached , in order of
                     seniority;
               ( b ) the judges of the other small Chamber, in the same order.
 ---pagebreak--- 11 . 11 . 95        1 EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 299/3
                 For each case the large Chamber shall he composed of:
                 — the President,
                 — the Judge-Rapporteur,
                 — three judges appointed in order from the list; the starting point on that list shall be moved
                      down one name at each general meeting .
                 Any judges prevented from sitting shall be replaced in order from the list . However , should the
                 President of the large Chamber be prevented from sitting, he is to be replaced preferably by the
                 President of the small Chamber .
                 If the Court, or a Chamber, deems it appropriate to hear and determine several cases together
                 ( whether or not they are formally joined ) the composition of the bench shall be that determined
                 for the first of the cases discussed at a general meeting .
             4 . For the period ending on 6 October 1996 the lists referred to above are as follows :
                 First Chamber
                 ( President : Mr Edward )
                 Mr Jann ,
                 Mr Sevón ,
                 Mr Wathelet, Judges
                 Fourth Chamber
                 ( President : Mr Kakouris )
                 Mr Kapteyn ,
                 Mr Murray ,
                 Mr Ragnemalm , Judges
                 Fifth Chamber
                 ( President: Mr Edward )
                 Mr Jann ,
                 Mr Sevón
                 Mr Wathelet,
                 Mr Moitinho de Almeida ,
                 Mr Gulmann ,
                  Mr Puissochet, Judges
                 Sixth Chamber
                  ( President: Mr Kakouris )
                  Mr Kapteyn,
                 Mr Murray,
                  Mr Ragnemalm ,
                  Mr Mancini ,
                  Mr Schockweiler,
                  Mr Hirsch, Judges
             Appointment of the First Advocate-General
             In accordance with Article 10 ( 1 ) of the Rules of Procedure the Court of Justice appointed
             Advocate-General Tesauro as First Advocate-General for a period of one year starting on 7 October
              1995 .


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 28 March 1996 in Case C-243/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Sozialgericht Stuttgart): Alejandro Rincón Moreno v. Bundesanstalt für Arbeit (Social security for migrant workers - Family benefits - Article 74 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71)

text:
 6 . 7. 96            EN |               Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 197/1
                                                                 I
                                                           (Information)
                                            COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                      COURT OF JUSTICE
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                No 2001 /83 of 2 June 1983 and subsequently by Council
                       ( Sixth Chamber)                             Regulation (EEC) No 3427/89 of30 October 1 989, must be
                                                                    interpreted as meaning that the expression 'unemployed
                     of 28 March 1996                               person. . . who draws unemployment benefits under the
in Case C-243/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling made           legislation of a Member State ' also covers unemployed
by the Sozialgericht Stuttgart): Alejandro Rincon Moreno v.         persons registered with the competent national authority
                 Bundesanstalt fiir Arbeit O                        whose entitlement to unemployment benefit has been
(Social security for migrant workers — Family benefits —            suspended because compensation was paid to them by their
        Article 74 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71)                  employer by reason of the fact that the employment
                                                                    relationship was terminated without observance ofa period
                          96/C 197/01 )                             of notice, or because payment of unemployment benefits in
                                                                    cash was temporarily excluded, in cases where, during that
               (Language of the case: German)                       period of exclusion, they are covered against the risks of
                                                                    sickness and accidents under the legislation of the
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be        competent State.
         published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                    (M OJ No C 304 , 29 . 10 . 1994 .
In Case C-243/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty by the Sozialgericht ( Social Court)
Stuttgart ( Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings pending before that court between Alejandro
Rincon Moreno and Bundesanstalt fiir Arbeit — on the
interpretation of Article 74 of Council Regulation ( EEC )                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social
security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed                                    (Fifth Chamber)
persons and to members of their families moving within the                               of 28 March 1996
Community ( OJ, English Special Edition 1971 ( II ), p . 416 ),
as amended and updated by Council Regulation ( EEC )                in Case C- 1 60/95 : Commission of the European
No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983 ( OJ L 230, 1983 , p. 6) and                          Communities v. Hellenic Republic ( l )
subsequently by Council Regulation ( EEC) No 3427/89 of             (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
30 October 1989 ( OJ L 331 , 1989, p . 1 ) — the Court ( Sixth        Non-transposition of Directive 91/156/EEC — Waste)
Chamber), composed of C. N. Kakouris ( Rapporteur ),                                        ( 96/C 197/02 )
President of the Chamber, F. A. Schockweiler, P. J. G.
Kapteyn, J. L. Murray and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; M. B.                              (Language of the case: Greek)
Elmer, Advocate-General; H. A. Ruhl, Principal
Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on
28 March 1996 , the operative part of which is as                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
follows :                                                                    published in the European Court Reports)
Article 74 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of                In Case C-l 60/95 : Commission of the European
14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes          Communities ( Agent: Maria Kontou-Durande) v. Hellenic
to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to                Republic (Agents: Ioanna Galani-Maragkoudaki and Evi
members oftheir families moving within the Community, as            Skandalou ) — application for a declaration that, by not
amended and updated by Council Regulation (EEC)                     adopting or by not communicating to the Commission


title: Case C-355/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Diikitiko Protodikio Thessalonikis (Fifth Chamber, Three Judges) by judgment of that court of 31 July 2000 in the case of Freskot AE against the Greek State

text:
C 335/38               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     25.11.2000
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vakuutus-                   3)    If the answer to Question (2) is no, is that payment
oikeus by order of that court of 18 January 2000 in the                       nonetheless part of the taxable amount by reason of
                 case of Pirkko Aulikki Niemi                                 constituting the consideration (or part of the consider-
                                                                              ation) for a supply?
                        (Case C-351/00)
                                                                        (1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
                                                                            harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
                        (2000/C 335/65)                                     turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
                                                                            basis of assessment (OJ L 145, 13.06.77, p. 1).
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Vakuutusoikeus
(Insurance Court), Finland, of 18 January 2000, which was
received at the Court Registry on 21 September 2000, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Pirkko Aulikki Niemi on the
following question:
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Diikitiko
                                                                        Protodikio Thessalonikis (Fifth Chamber, Three Judges)
Does the pension scheme under the Valtion eläkelaki (State              by judgment of that court of 31 July 2000 in the case of
Pensions Law) fall within the scope of Article 141 EC or of                            Freskot AE against the Greek State
Council Directive 79/7/EEC (1)?
                                                                                (Case C-355/00)
(1) Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the pro-
    gressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for                              (2000/C 335/67)
    men and women in matters of social security (OJ L 6, 10.01.79,
    p. 24).                                                             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by judgment of the Diikitiko Protodi-
                                                                        kio Thessalonikis (Administrative Court of First Instance,
                                                                        Thessaloniki) (Fifth Chamber, Three Judges) of 31 July 2000,
                                                                        received at the Court Registry on 26 September 2000 for a
                                                                        preliminary ruling in the case of Freskot AE against the Greek
                                                                        State on the following question:
                                                                        Whether the imposition of the insurance contribution referred
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties                to in the grounds of the judgment, to which domestically-
Tribunal, Manchester Tribunal Centre, by direction of                   produced agricultural products and by-products of vegetable
that court of 8 September 2000, in the case of Keeping                  or animal origin or originating from fishing are subject and
Newcastle Warm against Commissioners of Customs and                     which is levied and paid as income to the competent public
                              Excise                                    finance service, is, given the objective which it pursues, namely
                                                                        organising and implementing programmes of proactive protec-
                        (Case C-353/00)                                 tion and insuring the production and assets of agricultural
                                                                        enterprises, contrary to the provisions of European Union law
                                                                        concerning the free movement of goods (Article 28), the
                        (2000/C 335/66)                                 common agricultural policy (Articles 38, 39 and 40), the
                                                                        freedom to provide services (Articles 59 and 60), permitted
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  State aid (Article 92) and the provisions of the First Council
European Communities by a direction of the VAT and Duties               Directive 73/239/EEC of 24 July 1973.
Tribunal, Manchester Tribunal Centre, of 8 September 2000,
which was received at the Court Registry on 25 September
2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Keeping Newcastle
Warm against Commissioners of Customs and Excise, on the
following questions:
1)    Is a payment made by the Energy Grants Action Agency              Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de
      to the Appellant, which receives it in respect of energy          Commerce, Foix, France, by judgment of that court of
      advice given to an eligible householder, a subsidy within         25 September 2000 in the case of Réunion des Assureurs
      the meaning of that word in Article 11.A.I (a) of the EC                             Maladie v Jean Marc Laboup
      Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) (1)?
                                                                                (Case C-359/00)
2)    If the answer to the first Question is yes, is that payment
      also directly linked to the price of the supply of energy                                  (2000/C 335/68)
      advice, so as to form part of the taxable amount of
      that supply by reason of the concluding words of                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      Article 11.A. 1(a)?                                               European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal de


title: Case T-4/12: Action brought on 3 January 2012 — Olive Line International v OHIM — Carapelli Firenze (Maestro de Oliva)

text:
               24.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/24

         Action brought on 3 January 2012 — Olive Line International v OHIM — Carapelli Firenze (Maestro de Oliva)
   (Case T-4/12)
   2012/C 89/42
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Olive Line International, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: M. Aznar Alonso, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Carapelli Firenze SpA (Tavarnelle Val di Pesa (Florence), Italy)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the present action admissible and find that the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 21 September 2011 in Case R 1612/2010-2 is inconsistent with Council Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (now Regulation No 297/2009), in so far as that decision annulled the decision of the Opposition Division of OHIM of 20 July 2010 in opposition proceedings No B 1344995, and rejected the application to register as a Community trade mark international mark No 938.133 for part of the goods in Classes 29 and 30 in respect of which registration was sought;

               —

               order the defendant, and where appropriate the intervener, to pay all the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred in the opposition and appeal proceedings before OHIM.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: figurative mark with the word element ‘Maestro de Oliva’ for goods in Classes 29 and 30

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Carapelli Firenze SPA

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: national word mark ‘MAESTRO’ for goods in Classes 29 and 30

      Decision of the Opposition Division: opposition rejected

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal upheld and application rejected in relation to part of the goods in respect of which registration was sought

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 15(1)(a) and related articles of Regulation No 207/2009, since the use made by the defendant of the opposing mark constitutes a deliberate change in the original concept of the mark represented by the opposing mark and, therefore, substantially alters the distinctive character of the mark ‘MAESTRO’, and infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, since there is no likelihood of confusion between the conflicting marks.


title: Case C-407/00: Action brought on 8 November 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria

text:
27.1.2001              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 28/13
Action brought on 8 November 2000 by the Commission                     Action brought on 8 November 2000 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Republic of                     of the European Communities against the Federal Repub-
                             Austria                                                                lic of Germany
                                                                                (Case C-408/00)
                         (Case C-407/00)
                                                                                (2001/C 28/23)
                                                                        An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
                          (2001/C 28/22)                                brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties on 8 November 2000 by the Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities, represented by Götz zur Hausen, Commission
                                                                        Legal Adviser, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought                   the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service,
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on              Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg.
8 November 2000 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Götz zur Hausen, Legal Adviser,
of its Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg         The applicant claims that the Court should:
at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service,
Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg.                                         1.    declare that, by not adopting in full, or in any event not
                                                                              communicating in full to the Commission, the laws,
                                                                              regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
                                                                              comply with Council Directive 97/11/EC (1) of 3 March
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment
                                                                              of the effects of certain public and private projects on the
                                                                              environment, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed
(1) declare that, by failing within the time-limit prescribed to              to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
      take all necessary measures in order to comply with
      Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 (1)                 2.    order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
      on the control of major-accident hazards involving
      dangerous substances, and in particular Articles 11
      and 12 thereof, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil      Pleas in law and main arguments
      its obligations under the EC Treaty;
                                                                        The pleas in law and main arguments correspond to those in
                                                                        Case C-407/00 (2); the time-limit for implementation expired
(2) order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.                     on 14 March 1999.
                                                                        (1) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.
                                                                        (2) See p. 13 of this Official Journal.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third paragraph
of Article 249 EC and of the first paragraph of Article 10 EC
obliges the Member States to adopt the measures necessary in
order to comply with directives addressed to them within the            Action brought on 10 November 2000 by Kingdom of
time-limit prescribed for so doing. That time-limit expired on          Spain against Commission of the European Communities
3 February 1999 but Austria has not to date taken all the
measures required in order to transpose Articles 11 and 12 of
                                                                                (Case C-409/00)
the directive.
                                                                                (2001/C 28/24)
(1) OJ 1997 L 10, p. 13.                                                An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                        Communities on 10 November 2000 by the Kingdom of
                                                                        Spain, represented by Mónica López-Monı́s Gallego, abogado
                                                                        del Estado, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
                                                                        Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its
                                                                        Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.


title: Case C-254/10 P: Order of the Court of 3 March 2011 — Centre de Coordination Carrefour SNC v European Commission (Appeal — Aid scheme in favour of coordination centres established in Belgium — Conditions of admissibility of an action for annulment — Concept of ‘interest in bringing proceedings’ — Res judicata)

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/8

         Order of the Court of 3 March 2011 — Centre de Coordination Carrefour SNC v European Commission
   (Case C-254/10 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Aid scheme in favour of coordination centres established in Belgium - Conditions of admissibility of an action for annulment - Concept of ‘interest in bringing proceedings’ - Res judicata)
   2011/C 252/14
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Centre de Coordination Carrefour SNC (represented by: X. Clarebout, C. Docclo and M. Pittie, avocats)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: C. Urraca Caviedes and J.-P. Keppenne, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 18 March 2010 — Case T-94/08 Centre de Coordination Carrefour v Commission, by which the General Court dismissed as inadmissible the applicant’s action seeking annulment of Commission Decision 2008/283/EC of 13 November 2007 amending Decision 2003/757/EC on the aid scheme implemented by Belgium for coordination centres established in Belgium (OJ 2008 L 90, p. 7) — Conditions of admissibility of an action for annulment — Concept of interest in bringing proceedings — Res judicata

      Operative part of the order

   The Court hereby:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders the Centre de Coordination Carrefour SNC to bear the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 246, 11.9.2010


title: Case T-42/17: Action brought on 25 January 2017 — VR-Bank Rhein-Sieg v SRB

text:
               13.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/38

         Action brought on 25 January 2017 — VR-Bank Rhein-Sieg v SRB
   (Case T-42/17)
   (2017/C 078/52)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: VR-Bank Rhein-Sieg eG (Siegburg, Germany) (represented by: H. Berger and K. Rübsamen, lawyers)

      Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 15 April 2016 on the ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund for 2016 (SRB/ES/SRF/2016/06) and the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 20 May 2016 on the adjustment of the ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund for 2016, supplementing the decision of the Board of 15 April 2016 on the ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund for 2016 (SRB/ES/SRF/2016/13), in so far as the contested decisions affect the applicant’s contribution;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-14/17, Landesbank Baden-Württemberg v SRB.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 March 2000 in Case C-386/98: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 93/104/EC — Organisation of working time — Failure to transpose into national law)

text:
C 149/2                 EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                          27.5.2000
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        (Second Chamber)                                                             of 14 March 2000
                          of 9 March 2000                                    in Joined Cases C-102/98 and C-211/98 (references for a
                                                                             preliminary ruling from the Bundessozialgericht): Ibrahim
                                                                             Kocak v Landesversicherungsanstalt Oberfranken und
in Case C-386/98: Commission of the European Communi-                        Mittelfranken (C-102/98) and Ramazan Örs v Bundes-
                     ties v Italian Republic (1)                                                 knappschaft (C-211/98) (1)
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                       (EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Decisions of the
Directive 93/104/EC — Organisation of working time —                         Association Council — Social Security — Principle of non-
             Failure to transpose into national law)                         discrimination on grounds of nationality — Direct effect —
                                                                             Scope — Legislation of a Member State on determination of
                                                                             dates of birth for the purposes of allocating a social security
                          (2000/C 149/02)                                             number and awarding a retirement pension)
                                                                                (2000/C 149/03)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-386/98: Commission of the European Communities                     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Agents: P.J. Kuijper and A. Aresu) v Italian Republic (Agents:                                 in the European Court Reports)
Professor U. Leanza, assisted by D. Del Gaizo) — application
for a declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
or administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council                In Joined Cases C-102/98 and C-211/98: Reference to the
Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain                   Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now Article 234
aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 1993 L 307,                  EC) by the Bundessozialgericht, Germany, for a preliminary
p. 18), and/or by failing to inform the Commission thereof,                  ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the          Ibrahim Kocak v Landesversicherungsanstalt Oberfranken und
EC Treaty — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: R.                      Mittelfranken (C-102/98) and Ramazan Örs v Bundes-
Schintgen, President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch and V. Skouris                knappschaft (C-211/98), on the interpretation of Article 9
(Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass,               of the Agreement establishing an Association between the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 March 2000, in which it:                European Economic Community and Turkey signed at Ankara
                                                                             on 12 September 1963 and concluded, approved and con-
                                                                             firmed on behalf of the Community by Council Decision
1. Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period the       64/732/EEC of 23 December 1963 (OJ 1977 L 361, p. 29), of
    laws, regulations or administrative provisions necessary to comply       Article 37 of the Additional Protocol signed in Brussels on
    with Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993                     23 November 1970 and concluded, approved and confirmed
    concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time,          on behalf of the Community by Council Regulation (EEC)
    the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that     No 2760/72 of 19 December 1972 (OJ 1977 L 361, p. 61), of
    directive;                                                               Article 10(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council
                                                                             of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association
                                                                             (not published), and of Article 3(1) of Decision No 3/80 of the
2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                             Association Council of the same date on the application of the
                                                                             social security schemes of the Member States of the European
                                                                             Communities to Turkish workers and members of their
                                                                             families (OJ 1983 C 110, p. 60) — the Court, composed of:
(1) OJ C 397 of 19.12.1998.                                                  G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, D.A.O. Edward, L. Sevón,
                                                                             R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) (Presidents of Chambers), P.J.G.
                                                                             Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, H. Ragne-
                                                                             malm, M. Wathelet and V. Skouris, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo
                                                                             Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
                                                                             judgment on 14 March 2000, in which it held:


title: Case C-345/13: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court (Ireland) made on 24 June 2013 — Karen Millen Fashions Ltd v Dunnes Stores, Dunnes Stores (Limerick) Ltd

text:
               7.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/26

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court (Ireland) made on 24 June 2013 — Karen Millen Fashions Ltd v Dunnes Stores, Dunnes Stores (Limerick) Ltd
   (Case C-345/13)
   2013/C 260/47
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Supreme Court

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Karen Millen Fashions Ltd

      Defendant: Dunnes Stores, Dunnes Stores (Limerick) Ltd

      Questions referred

               1.

               In consideration of the individual character of a design which is claimed to be entitled to be protected as an unregistered Community design for the purposes of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12th December, 2001 on Community designs (1), is the overall impression it produces on the informed user, within the meaning of Article 6 of that Regulation, to be considered by reference to whether it differs from the overall impression produced on such a user by

                           (a)

                           any individual design which has previously been made available to the public, or

                           (b)

                           any combination of known design features from more than one such earlier design?

               2.

               Is a Community design court obliged to treat an unregistered Community design as valid for the purposes of Article 85(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12th December, 2001 on Community designs where the right holder merely indicates what constitutes the individual character of the design or is the right holder obliged to prove that the design has individual character in accordance with Article 6 of that Regulation?

      (1)  OJ L 3, p. 1