C 79/42                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                   18.3.2000
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Removal from the register of Case T-317/97 to T-508/97 (1)
The applicant, who has been found guilty of a criminal offence                                    (2000/C 79/88)
by the courts, contests the disciplinary measure of removal
from post ordered against him or her by the appointing
authority.                                                                                (Language of the case: Portuguese)
In support of his or her arguments, the applicant claims that:            By order of 14 December 1999, the President of the Third
                                                                          Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
— the general principles applicable to disciplinary procedures            Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
    and, specifically, to the rights of the defence were infringed.       Case T-317/97 to T-508/97: David Manuel Abreu and Others
    The applicant takes the view in his respect that the decision         v Council of the European Union and Commission of the
    in question emanates specifically from the Director General           European Communities.
    for Personnel and the Administration who, as such, had
    initiated the disciplinary procedure and drawn up the
    report for the Disciplinary Board, despite forming part of            (1) OJ C 166 of 30.5.1998.
    the Disciplinary Committee himself. It is contrary to the
    abovementioned principles that a single body should
    combine the duties of a judge, set proceedings in motion
    and carry out the inquiry preceding the hearing. Moreover,
    throughout the disciplinary proceedings, the applicant’s
    request that they be made public was systematically
    refused.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-125/98 (1)
— the decision ordering the disciplinary measure was arbi-
    trary in nature or, at least contained a manifest error of                                    (2000/C 79/89)
    assessment inasmuch as, since it considered the conduct of
    which the applicant stood accused to have been proved,
    the Disciplinary Board, and subsequently the appointing                                  (Language of the case: French)
    authority, restricted themselves to referring to the judg-
    ment made by the Belgian criminal courts, whereas it is for
    the disciplinary authorities to verify for themselves whether         By order of 7 December 1999, the President of the Fifth
    the conduct with which the applicant is charged is proven.            Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                          Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
— the Disciplinary Board was not properly constituted since               Case T-125/98: Luc Veron v Commission of the European
    some of the members called upon to participate in the                 Communities.
    appointing authority’s opinion had not been able to take
    an active part in all the debates.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 312 of 10.10.1998.
        Removal from the register of Case T-96/96 (1)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-189/98 (1)
                          (2000/C 79/87)
                                                                                (2000/C 79/90)
                  (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
By order of 31 January 2000, the President of the Fifth
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                    By order of 14 December 1999, the President of the Second
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of                  Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Case T-96/96: Telecom Italia SpA (anc. Società Finanziaria                Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Telefonica per Azioni) v Commission of the European Com-                  Case T-189/98: Commune de Sassuolo v Commission of the
munities.                                                                 European Communities.
(1) OJ C 233 of 10.8.1996.                                                (1) OJ C 20 of 23.1.1999.


title: Case C-97/05: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 December 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Darmstadt — Germany) — Mohamed Gattoussi v Stadt Rüsselsheim (Euro-Mediterranean Agreement — Tunisian worker with permission to remain in a Member State and to work there — Principle of non-discrimination as regards working conditions, remuneration and dismissal — Curtailment of the period of validity of the residence permit)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/8

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 December 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Darmstadt — Germany) — Mohamed Gattoussi v Stadt Rüsselsheim
   (Case C-97/05) (1)

   (Euro-Mediterranean Agreement - Tunisian worker with permission to remain in a Member State and to work there - Principle of non-discrimination as regards working conditions, remuneration and dismissal - Curtailment of the period of validity of the residence permit)
   (2006/C 331/12)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Verwaltungsgericht Darmstadt
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Mohamed Gattoussi

      Defendant: Stadt Rüsselsheim
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgericht Darmstadt (Administrative Court, Darmstadt) — Interpretation of Art. 64 of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an Association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Tunisia of the other part (OJ 1998 L 97, p. 2) — Worker of Tunisian nationality employed in a Member State — Equal treatment as regards working conditions and remuneration — Curtailment of the period of the validity of residence permit bringing the worker's employment to an end
   Operative part of the judgment
   On a proper construction of Article 64(1) of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Tunisia, of the other part, done at Brussels on 17 July 1995 and approved on behalf of the European Community and the European Coal and Steel Community by Decision 98/238/EC, ECSC of the Council and the Commission of 26 January 1998, that provision may have effects on the right of a Tunisian national to remain in the territory of a Member State in the case where that person has been duly permitted by that Member State to work there for a period extending beyond the period of validity of his permission to remain.

      (1)  OJ C 106, 30.4.2005.


title: Case C-431/00: Action brought on 22 November 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic

text:
27.1.2001               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 28/21
Action brought on 22 November 2000 by the Com-                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
mission of the European Communities against the Portu-                 Amminstrativo Regionale per la Lombardia by order of
                           guese Republic                              that court of 6 October 2000 in the case of Europetrol
                                                                       SpA v Azienda Lombarda Edilizia Residenziale Milano
                                                                                (A.L.E.R.) and Orion SCRL
                           (Case C-431/00)
                            (2001/C 28/40)
                                                                                (Case C-432/00)
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
22 November 2000 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by António Caeiros, of its Legal                                      (2001/C 28/41)
Service, 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.
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by an order of the Tribunale Amminis-
                                                                       trativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Regional Administrative
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            Court for the Lombardy Region) of 6 October 2000, which
                                                                       was received at the Court Registry on 22 November 2000, for
                                                                       a preliminary ruling in the case of Europetrol SpA v Azienda
                                                                       Lombarda Edilizia Residenziale Milano (A.L.E.R.) and Orion
—     declare that, by failing to bring into force within the          SCRL, on the following question:
      prescribed period the laws, regulations or administrative
      provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
      96/82/EC (1) of 9 December 1996 on the control of
      major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances,
      the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations     May Article 31 — and in particular Article 31(1)(c) — of
      under the first paragraph of Article 10 and the third            Council Directive 92/50 (1) of 18 June 1992 relating to the
      paragraph of 249 of the EC Treaty, as well as the                coordination of procedures for the award of public service
      provisions of Article 24(1) of Directive 96/82/EC;               contracts be interpreted as meaning that the competent
                                                                       national courts are required to protect citizens of the Union
                                                                       adversely affected by measures adopted in breach of Com-
                                                                       munity law by resorting, in particular, to disapplication as
—     in the alternative, declare that, by failing to inform           provided for in Article 5 of Law No 2248 of 20 March 1865
      the Commission immediately of such measures, the                 with respect to clauses of an invitation to tender which are
      Portuguese Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under       contrary to Community law but were not challenged within
      the above provisions;                                            the short time-limit laid down by national procedural law for
                                                                       the application of Community law by the court of its own
                                                                       motion, whenever it is found, first, that the application of
                                                                       Community law has been seriously impeded or rendered
—     Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.                  difficult in any way, and second, that there is a public
                                                                       interest, of Community or national origin, which justifies such
                                                                       application, and does Article 6(2) of the Treaty which, by
                                                                       providing for respect of the fundamental rights safeguarded by
                                                                       the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                       Freedoms, has adopted the principle of effective judicial
                                                                       protection provided for in Articles 6 and 13 of that Conven-
                                                                       tion, lead to the same conclusion?
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
relied on in Case C-407/00 (2); the time-limit for transposing
the directive expired on 3 February 1999.
                                                                       (1) OJ L 209 of 24.7.1992, p. 1.
(1) OJ 1997 L 10, p. 13.
(2) See p. 13 of this Official Journal.


title: Case T-299/05: Action brought on 26 July 2005 — Shanghai Excell M&E Enterprise and Shanghai Adeptech Precision/Council

text:
               15.10.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 257/14

         Action brought on 26 July 2005 — Shanghai Excell M&E Enterprise and Shanghai Adeptech Precision/Council
   (Case T-299/05)
   (2005/C 257/27)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties:

      Applicant(s): Shanghai Excell M&E Enterprise Co Ltd and Shanghai Adeptech Precision Company Limited (Shanghai, China) [represented by: R. MacLean, solicitor]

      Defendant(s): Council of the European Union
   Form of order sought:

               —

               annul Council Regulation (EC) 692/2005 (1) of 28 April 2005, insofar as it applies to the applicant; and

               —

               order the Council to pay the legal costs and expenses of the procedure.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The contested regulation imposed an anti-dumping duty on the applicants' exports of retail electronic weighing scales which also applied retrospectively to imports of these products registered in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) 1408/2004 (2). Customs authorities in the EU were also instructed to cease the registration of imports of products coming from the People's Republic of China for the applicants.
   The applicants request the Court to annul this regulation. In support of their application they invoke an infringement of Article 2.7(c) para. (2) of Council Regulation (EC) 384/1996 on the grounds that the Commission rendered a determination on the issue of Market Economy Treatment for the applicants after the expiry of the three month period provided for in this article. They further invoke manifest errors of assessment relating to the determination of whether the applicants operated under market economy conditions. The applicants consider these alleged errors as violations of Article 2.A.7.(c) para. (1) of Regulation (EC) 384/1996.
   The contested regulation was adopted after a ‘newcomer investigation’ in respect of the applicants. The applicants allege that in that investigation the Community institutions did not adopt the same methodology they had applied in the original investigation which led to the duty and that, therefore, Article 11 paragraph 9 of Regulation (EC) 384/1996 was also violated.
   The applicants also contend that the Community institutions failed to apply the proper standards in assessing the criteria relating to normal value, export price and profit margin and that therefore Articles 2.A.7. para(A) and 2.C. para(10) of Regulation (EC) 384/1996 were violated.
   Finally, the applicants contend that the contested regulation does not identify them properly in that it states incorrect addresses for both of them. They consider that a material error of fact.

      (1)  OJ L 112, 3/5/2005, p. 42

      (2)  OJ L 256, 03/08/2004, p. 8


title: Case C-47/15: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 7 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Sélina Affum v Préfet du Pas-de-Calais, Procureur général de la cour d’appel de Douai (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Directive 2008/115/EC — Common standards and procedures for returning illegally staying third-country nationals — Police custody — National legislation providing for a sentence of imprisonment in the event of illegal entry — Situation of ‘transit’ — Multilateral readmission arrangement)

text:
               16.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/11

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 7 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Sélina Affum v Préfet du Pas-de-Calais, Procureur général de la cour d’appel de Douai
   (Case C-47/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Directive 2008/115/EC - Common standards and procedures for returning illegally staying third-country nationals - Police custody - National legislation providing for a sentence of imprisonment in the event of illegal entry - Situation of ‘transit’ - Multilateral readmission arrangement))
   (2016/C 296/15)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de cassation

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Sélina Affum

      Respondents: Préfet du Pas-de-Calais, Procureur général de la cour d’appel de Douai

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 2(1) and Article 3(2) of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals must be interpreted as meaning that a third-country national is staying illegally on the territory of a Member State and therefore falls within the scope of that directive when, without fulfilling the conditions for entry, stay or residence, he passes in transit through that Member State as a passenger on a bus from another Member State forming part of the Schengen area and bound for a third Member State outside that area.

               2.

               Directive 2008/115 must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which permits a third country national in respect of whom the return procedure established by that directive has not yet been completed to be imprisoned merely on account of illegal entry across an internal border, resulting in an illegal stay.
               That interpretation also applies where the national concerned may be taken back by another Member State pursuant to an agreement or arrangement within the meaning of Article 6(3) of the directive.

      (1)  OJ C 118, 13.4.2015.


title: Case T-417/12: Judgment of the General Court of 23 October 2013 — SFC Jardibric v OHIM — Aqua Center Europa (AQUA FLOW) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community figurative mark AQUA FLOW — Earlier national figurative mark VAQUA FLOW — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Declaration of invalidity — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — No limitation in consequence of acquiescence — Article 54(2) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               7.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 359/10

         Judgment of the General Court of 23 October 2013 — SFC Jardibric v OHIM — Aqua Center Europa (AQUA FLOW)
   (Case T-417/12) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community figurative mark AQUA FLOW - Earlier national figurative mark VAQUA FLOW - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Declaration of invalidity - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - No limitation in consequence of acquiescence - Article 54(2) of Regulation No 207/2009)
   2013/C 359/17
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: SFC Jardibric (Saint-Jean-de-la-Ruelle, France) (represented by: J.-L. Fourgoux, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Aqua Center Europa, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: M.J. Martín Izquierdo, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 July 2012 (Case R 2230/2010-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Aqua Center Europa, SA and SFC Jardibric.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders SFC Jardibric to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 373, 1.12.2012.


title: Case C-307/08: Action brought on 9 July 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               25.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 272/7

         Action brought on 9 July 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-307/08)
   (2008/C 272/09)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J.-P. Keppenne and R. Lyal, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, since it does not prevent double taxation of dividends paid by undertakings domiciled in another Member State or EEA/EFTA State to natural persons, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56 EC and Article 40 of the European Economic Area Agreement;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By its action, the Commission submits that Belgian tax legislation creates an unjustified restriction on the free movement of capital inasmuch as it taxes dividends payment to natural persons by companies established in another Member State or in a State of the European Economic Area (‘incoming’ dividends) in the same way as dividends paid by companies established in Belgium (‘internal’ dividends), without taking into account taxation at source paid in the State from which the dividends originate. Such legislation penalises cross-border capital transactions since it dissuades individual taxpayers from investing in shares in foreign companies and at the same time it constitutes an obstacle to the accumulation of capital in Belgium for companies having their registered office in other Member States.


title: Case T-567/13: Action brought on 29 October 2013 — Sharp v OHIM (BIG PAD)

text:
               25.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/24

         Action brought on 29 October 2013 — Sharp v OHIM (BIG PAD)
   (Case T-567/13)
   2014/C 24/42
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Sharp KK (Osaka, Japan) (represented by: G. Macias Bonilla, G. Marín Raigal, P. López Ronda and E. Armero, 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 Fourth Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 5 August 2013 given in Case R 2131/2012-2;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark containing the verbal elements ‘BIG PAD’ for goods and services in Class 9 — Community trade mark application No 10 887 231

      Decision of the Examiner: Rejected the CTM application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

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


title: ORDER OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber) of 11 July 1996 in Case C-325/94 P: An Taisce - The National Trust for Ireland and World Wide Fund for Nature UK (WWF) v. Commission of the European Communities (Appeal - Actionable decision - Appeal clearly unfounded)

text:
23 . 11 . 96        1 EN |                 Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 354/ 13
suffered as a result of his wrongful imprisonment has not yet                           ORDER OF THE COURT
been made good — the Court (Third Chamber), composed                                         ( Fourth Chamber )
of J. -P. Puissochet, President of Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de
Almeida ( Rapporteur) and C. Gulmann, Judges; A. Pergola ,                                     of 11 July 1996
Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on               in Case C-325 /94 P: An Taisce — The National Trust for
12 June 1996 , the operative part of which is as follows :            Ireland and World Wide Fund for Nature UK ( WWF ) v.
                                                                             Commission of the European Communities ( 1 )
The Court manifestly has no jurisdiction to reply to the              (Appeal — Actionable decision — Appeal clearly
question referred for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de                                       unfounded)
Commerce, Marseille, by judgment of 1 March 1996.                                                ( 96/C 354/25 )
(') OJ No C 158 , 1 . 6 . 1996 .                                                     (Language of the case: English)
                                                                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                               published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                      In Case C-325/94 P : An Taisce — The National Trust for
                  ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                      Ireland and World Wide Fund for Nature UK ( WWF )
                        ( Third Chamber )                             (represented by George Berrisch ) — appeal against the
                         of 12 June 1996                              judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                      Communities ( Second Chamber ) of 23 September 1994 in
in Case C-96/96 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from the         Case T-461 /93 between An Taisce and WWF UK and the
Tribunal de Commerce de Marseille ): URSSAF ( Union de                Commission [ 1994] ECR 11-733 , seeking to have that
Recouvrement des Cotisations de Sécurité Sociale et
                                                                      judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings being
d'Allocations Familiales ) des Bouches-du-Rhône v. Clinique           the Commission of the European Communities ( Agents :
                           Florens SA (M                              Carmel O'Reilly and Marc van der Woude ) — the Court
(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Lack ofjurisdiction of          ( Fourth Chamber ), composed of: C. N. Kakouris , President
                         Court ofJustice)                             of the Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn and H. Ragnemalm
                           ( 96/C 354/24 )                             ( Rapporteur ), Judges; A. La Pergola , Advocate-General ; R.
                                                                      Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 11 July 1996 in
                                                                      which it :
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                       1 . dismisses the appeal;
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                      2 . orders the appellants to pay the costs .
In Case C - 95/96 : reference under Article 177 of the EC
                                                                       (') OJ No C 386 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .
Treaty by the Tribunal de Commerce [Commercial Court],
Marseille ( France ) for a preliminary ruling in the case
pending before that court between URSSAF ( Union de
Recouvrement des Cotisations de Sécurité Sociale et
d' Allocations Familiales )       des Bouches-du-Rhone and
Clinique Florens SA on the question whether it is possible to
request the opening of proceedings for redressement                                     ORDER OF THE COURT
judiciaire ( judicial settlement) involving a person who has
                                                                                (First Chamber )
been charged with and acquitted of a criminal offence,
where the damage suffered as a result of his wrongful                                      of 17 September 1996
 imprisonment has not yet been made good — the Court                   in Case C-19/95 P: San Marco Impex Italiana Sri v.
 ( Third Chamber), composed ofJ. -P. Puissochet, President of                 Commission of the European Communities ( J )
 Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida ( Rapporteur ) and C.
 Gulmann, Judges; A. La Pergola , Advocate-General; R.                  (Appeal — Public work contract — Article 178 and the
 Grass, Registrar, made an order on 12 June 1996 , the                        second paragraph of Article 215 of the Teaty)
 operative part of which is as follows :                                                          ( 96/C 354/26 )
 The Court manifestly has no jurisdiction to reply to the                             (Language of the case: English)
 question referred for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de
 Commerce, Marseille, by judgment of 1 March 1996 .                     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
 (') OJ No C 158 , 1 . 6 . 1996 .
                                                                        In Case C-19/95 : San Marco Impex Italiana Sri ( represented
                                                                        by Lucette Defalque ) — appeal for the annulment of the


               27.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 133/3

         Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Norges Høyesterett dated 14 December 2016 in the case of Torbjørn Selstad Thue and the Norwegian Police Federation (Politiets Fellesforbund) v the Norwegian Government, represented by the Ministry of Justice and Public Security
   (Case E-19/16)
   (2017/C 133/03)
   A request has been made to the EFTA Court dated 14 December 2016 from Norges Høyesterett (the Supreme Court of Norway), which was received at the Court Registry on 14 December 2016, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Torbjørn Selstad Thue and the Norwegian Police Federation (Politiets Fellesforbund) v the Norwegian Government, represented by the Ministry of Justice and Public Security on the following questions:

               1.

               Is the time spent on a journey ordered by the employer, to and/or from a place of attendance other than the employee’s fixed or habitual place of attendance, when such travel takes place outside normal working hours, to be considered working time within the meaning of Article 2 of Directive 2003/88/EC?

               2.

               Insofar as travel as described in Question I is not by itself sufficient to be classified as working time, what is the legal test and the relevant elements to be considered in the assessment of whether the time spent on travel should nonetheless be deemed to constitute working time? As part of this question, an opinion is requested on whether an intensity assessment should be made of the amount of work performed while travelling.

               3.

               Does it have any bearing on the assessments under Questions I and II how often the employer specifies a place of attendance other than the fixed or habitual one?


title: Case T-444/12: Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2014  — Novartis v OHIM — Tenimenti Angelini (LINEX) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark LINEX — Earlier national word mark LINES PERLA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 76(1), in fine, of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               24.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 421/32

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2014 — Novartis v OHIM — Tenimenti Angelini (LINEX)
   (Case T-444/12) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark LINEX - Earlier national word mark LINES PERLA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 76(1), in fine, of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   2014/C 421/44
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Novartis AG (Basel, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Douglas, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Tenimenti Angelini SpA (Montalcino, Italy) (represented by: R. Almaraz Palmero, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 August 2012 (Case R 414/2011-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Tenimenti Angelini SpA and Novartis AG.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for the Harmonisation of the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 6 August 2012 (Case R 414/2011-4);

               2)

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the applicant;

               3)

               Orders the intervener to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 399, 22.12.2012.


title: Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-27/95 and T-29/95

text:
4 . 5 . 96         UN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                             No C 133/33
        Removal from the register of Case T-516/93 ( )                    Removal from the register of Case T-263/94 ( 1 )
                          ( 96/C 133/67 )                                                     ( 96/C 133/69 )
               (Language of the case: Dutch)                                        (Language of tbe case: Dutch)
By order of 7 March 1996 the President of the Fourth                 By order of 19 March 1996 the President of the First
Chamber ( Extended Composition ) of the Court of First               Chamber ( Extended Composition ) of the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal             Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case T-516/93 : Pacific Fruit Company           from the register of Case T-263/94 : J. van Rooy v. Council
NV and Pacific Fruit Company BV v. Council of the                    of the European Union and Commission of the European
European Union and Commission of the European                        Communities .
Communities .
                                                                     (M OJ No C 275 , 1 . 10 . 1994 .
(>) OJ No C 188 , 10 . 7 . 1993 .
        Removal from the register of Case T-517/93 ( )               Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-27/95 and
                          ( 96/C 133/68 )                                                        T-29/95 (*)
                                                                                ( 96/C 133/70 )
               (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
By order of 7 March 1996 the President of the Fourth
Chamber (Extended Composition ) of the Court of First                By order of 28 February 1 996 the President of the Second
Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal             Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
from the register of Case T-517/93 : Leon Van Parijs NV v.           Communities ordered the removal from the register of
Council of the European Union and Commission of the                  Joined Cases T-27/95 and T-29/95 : Nicolas Wegter and
European Communities .
                                                                     Antonio B. de Menezes v. Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities .
(') OJ No C 188 , 10 . 7 . 1993 .
                                                                     (!) OJ No C 87, 8 . 4 . 1995 .


title: Case C-640/15: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal — Ireland) — European arrest warrant in respect of Tomas Vilkas (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — European arrest warrant — Article 23 — Time limit for surrender of the requested person — Possibility of agreeing on a new surrender date on a number of occasions — Resistance of the requested person to his surrender — Force majeure)

text:
               13.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/4

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal — Ireland) — European arrest warrant in respect of Tomas Vilkas
   (Case C-640/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - European arrest warrant - Article 23 - Time limit for surrender of the requested person - Possibility of agreeing on a new surrender date on a number of occasions - Resistance of the requested person to his surrender - Force majeure))
   (2017/C 078/05)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Court of Appeal

      Party to the main proceedings

   Tomas Vilkas

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 23(3) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, the executing and issuing judicial authorities agree on a new surrender date under that provision where the surrender of the requested person within 10 days of a first new surrender date agreed on pursuant to that provision proves impossible on account of the repeated resistance of that person, in so far as, on account of exceptional circumstances, that resistance could not have been foreseen by those authorities and the consequences of the resistance for the surrender could not have been avoided in spite of the exercise of all due care by those authorities, which is for the referring court to ascertain.
   Articles 15(1) and 23 of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, must be interpreted as meaning that those authorities remain obliged to agree on a new surrender date if the time limits prescribed in Article 23 have expired.

      (1)  OJ C 59, 15.2.2016.


title: Cases T-310/09 and T-383/09: Judgment of the General Court of 12 April 2011 — Fuller & Thaler Asset Management v OHIM (BEHAVIOURAL INDEXING and BEHAVIOURAL INDEX) (Community trade mark — Applications for Community word marks BEHAVIOURAL INDEXING and BEHAVIOURAL INDEX — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               28.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 160/19

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 April 2011 — Fuller & Thaler Asset Management v OHIM (BEHAVIOURAL INDEXING and BEHAVIOURAL INDEX)
   (Cases T-310/09 and T-383/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Applications for Community word marks BEHAVIOURAL INDEXING and BEHAVIOURAL INDEX - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2011/C 160/28
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Fuller & Thaler Asset Management, Inc. (San Mateo, United States) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister)

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

      Re:

   ACTIONS brought, in Case T-310/09, against the decision of the Grand Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 April 2009 (Case R 323/2008-G) concerning an application for registration of the word sign BEHAVIOURAL INDEXING as a Community trade mark and, in Case T-383/09, against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 June 2009 (Case R 138/2009-1) concerning an application for registration of the word sign BEHAVIOURAL INDEX as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Orders that Cases T-310/09 and T-383/09 be joined for the purposes of the present judgment;

               2.

               Dismisses the applications;

               3.

               Orders Fuller & Thaler Asset Management, Inc., in Cases T-310/09 and T-383/09, to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

      (1)  OJ C 244, 10.10.2009.


title: Case T-318/05: Action brought on 17 August 2005 — De Geest v Council

text:
               12.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/25

         Action brought on 17 August 2005 — De Geest v Council
   (Case T-318/05)
   (2005/C 281/46)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Johan De Geest (Rhode-St-Genèse, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, X. Martin, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, E. Marchal, lawyers)

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

               —

               annul the decision of the Council of 3 January 2005 rejecting the applicant's claim to be recruited in grade A6 or A7, which have been renamed A*10 and A*8 since 1 May 2004;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and main arguments relied on by the applicant are identical to those relied on in Case T-164/05 De Geest v Council. (1)

      (1)  OJ C 171, 9.7.2005, p. 28.


title: Case T-214/10: Judgment of the General Court of 30 May 2013 — Moselland v OHIM — Renta Siete (DIVINUS) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark DIVINUS — Earlier national figurative mark MOSELLAND Divinum — Existence, validity and extent of the protection of the earlier right — Proof)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/62

         Judgment of the General Court of 30 May 2013 — Moselland v OHIM — Renta Siete (DIVINUS)
   (Case T-214/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark DIVINUS - Earlier national figurative mark MOSELLAND Divinum - Existence, validity and extent of the protection of the earlier right - Proof)
   2013/C 225/139
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Moselland eG — Winzergenossenschaft (Bernkastel-Kues, Germany) (represented by: M. Dippelhofer, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: initially, S. Schäffner, and subsequently by D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Renta Siete, SL (Albacete, Spain)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 February 2010 (Case R 1204/2009-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Moselland eG — Winzergenossenschaft and Renta Siete, SL.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 22 February 2010 (Case R 1204/2009-2);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Moselland eG — Winzergenossenschaft for the purposes of the proceedings before the General Court and before the Board of Appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 195, 17.7.2010.


title: Case C-445/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of  20 October 2005  in Werner Haderer v Finanzamt Wilmersdorf

text:
               11.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 60/19

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 20 October 2005 in Werner Haderer v Finanzamt Wilmersdorf
   (Case C-445/05)
   (2006/C 60/37)
   Language of the case: Germany
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court) (Germany) of 20 October 2005, received at the Court Registry on 14 December 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Werner Haderer and Finanzamt Wilmersdorf on the following question:
   Is tuition for school or university given by a private teacher to be exempt from tax under Article 13A(1)(j) of Directive 77/388/EEC (1) only where the private teacher provides his tuition services directly to the pupils/students as recipients of those services — and therefore is paid by them — or is it sufficient for the private teacher to provide his tuition services to a school or university as recipient of those services?

      (1)  OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.


title: Case C-138/09: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 May 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Palermo (Italy)) — Todaro Nunziatina & C. Snc v Assessorato del Lavoro, della Previdenza Sociale, della Formazione Professionale e dell’Emigrazione della regione Sicilia (Reference for a preliminary ruling — State aid — Commission decisions — Interpretation — Aid granted by the Region of Sicily to undertakings entering into training and work-experience contracts or converting such contracts into open-ended contracts — Time-limit for the grant of aid — Budgetary limits — Default interest — Inadmissibility)

text:
               3.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/12

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 May 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Palermo (Italy)) — Todaro Nunziatina & C. Snc v Assessorato del Lavoro, della Previdenza Sociale, della Formazione Professionale e dell’Emigrazione della regione Sicilia
   (Case C-138/09) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - State aid - Commission decisions - Interpretation - Aid granted by the Region of Sicily to undertakings entering into training and work-experience contracts or converting such contracts into open-ended contracts - Time-limit for the grant of aid - Budgetary limits - Default interest - Inadmissibility)
   2010/C 179/18
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale ordinario di Palermo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Todaro Nunziatina & C. Snc

      Defendant: Assessorato del Lavoro, della Previdenza Sociale, della Formazione Professionale e dell’Emigrazione della regione Sicilia

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale ordinario di Palermo — State aid — Scope of Commission Decisions SG (95) D/15975 of 21 December 1995 relating to Regional Law No 27 of the Region of Sicily of 15 May 1991 providing for measures to promote employment and 2003/195/EC of 16 October 2002 (OJ 2003 L 77, p. 57) on the aid granted by Sicily to companies entering into training and work experience contracts or converting training and work experience contracts into open-ended contracts

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Commission Decision SG (95) D/15975 of 11 December 1995 relating to Regional Law No 27 of the Region of Sicily of 15 May 1991 providing for measures to promote employment (State aid NN 91/A/95) must be interpreted as having accepted, as being compatible with the common market, an aid scheme composed of two measures provided for in Article 10(1)(a) and (b) of abovementioned Regional Law No 27, which cannot be cumulative and the event giving rise to which, that is to say, the recruitment of a worker or the conversion of the contract into an open-ended contract, must have taken place before 31 December 1996, but the payments to which they give rise may be made after that date, on condition that the applicable national budgetary and financial rules do not preclude that and that the budgetary provision approved by the Commission of the European Communities is not exceeded;

               2.

               Article 1 of Commission Decision 2003/195/EC of 16 October 2002 on the scheme by which Italy plans to aid employment in the Region of Sicily — C 56/99 (ex N 668/97) must be interpreted as meaning that the aid scheme provided for in Article 11(1) of Regional Law No 16 of the Region of Sicily of 27 May 1997 authorising expenditure for the use of the provisions entered in the general funds of the budget of the Region for the financial year 1997 constitutes new aid distinct from that provided for in Article 10 of Regional Law No 27 of the Region of Sicily of 15 May 1991 providing for measures to promote employment. Article 1 of Decision 2003/195 precludes the grant of subsidies in respect of any employment of workers recruited under training or work-experience contracts or conversion of training and work-experience contracts into open-ended contracts with effect from 1 January 1997;

               3.

               It is for the Member State concerned to determine which party to the proceedings has the burden of proving that the budgetary provision allocated for the aid measures referred to in Article 10(1)(a) and (b) of Regional Law No 27 of the Region of Sicily of 15 May 1991 providing for measures to aid employment and authorised by Decision SG (95) D/15975 has not been exhausted;

               4.

               The amount of statutory interest which may be due in the event of late payment of the aid authorised by Decision SG (95) D/15975 for the period following that decision is not to be included in the amount of the budgetary provision authorised by that decision. The rate of interest and the detailed arrangements for applying that rate fall within the scope of national law.

      (1)  OJ C 153, 4.7.2009.


title: Case C-122/07 P: Appeal brought on 28 February 2007 by Eurostrategies SPRL against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 1 December 2006 in Case T-203/06: Eurostrategies sprl v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/32

         Appeal brought on 28 February 2007 by Eurostrategies SPRL against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 1 December 2006 in Case T-203/06: Eurostrategies sprl v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-122/07 P)
   (2007/C 95/60)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Appellant: Eurostrategies SPRL (represented by: R.A. Lang and S. Crosby, Solicitors)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Order of the Court of First Instance of 1 December 2006 in Case T-203/06 quo ad its reasoning only.

               —

               make a ruling that the costs of the appeal be awarded in the appellant's favour.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The appellant maintains that:

               1.

               The Court of First Instance (CFI) infringed the principle of equality of arms, as enshrined in Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights and the EU Treaty by refusing to hear the Appellant's side of the story in respect of whether or not the appellant had received a supposed ‘holding reply’, which would, had it been received, have extended the Commission's deadline by fifteen days, thus obviating the need for a Court action.
               Further the CFI failed to hear the appellant's side of the story in respect of a second letter which the Commission contended was sent by email but which was in fact sent by fax.

               2.

               The CFI infringed Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1) of the European Parliament and the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents by finding that the Commission was entitled to the benefit of a 15-day extension of time pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Regulation, in the absence of evidence of the fulfilment of the requisite conditions for such an extension. One of the requisite conditions is that the ‘applicant is notified’. However, the only evidence produced by the Commission was the effect that an email was sent, not that it was received. The appellant contends that an email does not take legal effect until it is seen by the recipient. Thus, notification did not take place and so the stipulations of Article 8(2) of Regulation 1049/2001 were not fulfilled.

               3.

               The CFI infringed a mandatory rule of procedure by not carrying out a balancing exercise in reaching its judgment. The appellant cites Articles 47(1) and 67(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 2 May 1991 as examples of the need to carry out a balancing exercise.

               4.

               The CFI made a manifest error of assessment by distorting the clear sense of the evidence before it; the evidence in no way demonstrates notification, by the Commission, to the appellant, of its request for a 15-day extension.

               5.

               In the alternative to plea 4, the CFI infringed Community law in holding that an email takes legal effect on sending, not on receipt.

      (1)  OJ L 145, p. 43.


title: Case C-167/02 P: Appeal brought on 3 May 2002 by Willy Rothley and 70 other Members of the European Parliament against the judgment delivered on 26 February 2002 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Fifth Chamber) in Case T-17/00 Willy Rothley and 70 other Members of the European Parliament v The European Parliament, supported by the Council of the European Union, the Commission of the European Communities, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the French Republic

text:
C 156/10               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      29.6.2002
Appeal brought on 3 May 2002 by Willy Rothley and                           decision of the Parliament extend beyond the purely
70 other Members of the European Parliament against the                     internal organisation of the work of the Parliament, and
judgment delivered on 26 February 2002 by the Court                         the decision therefore has direct effects for the Members
of First Instance of the European Communities (Fifth                        of the Parliament. That decision is thus a measure which
Chamber) in Case T-17/00 Willy Rothley and 70 other                         can be the subject of an action under the first paragraph
Members of the European Parliament v The European                           of Article 230 EC, a view also subscribed to by the Court
Parliament, supported by the Council of the European                        of First Instance in the contested judgment. Those effects
Union, the Commission of the European Communities,                          are grounds enough for the action to be admissible, and
the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the French Republic                      it is not necessary in such a case to decide whether the
                                                                            appellants are individually concerned. In the alternative:
                                                                            contrary to the view of the Court of First Instance, the
                        (Case C-167/02 P)                                   appellants are already individually concerned by virtue of
                                                                            the fact that they form a closed circle of persons, the
                         (2002/C 156/18)                                    identity and number of whom is both fixed and known.
                                                                            The Court of First Instance also incorrectly found that the
                                                                            case-law establishing that an action for annulment of a
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 26 February                     measure of general application is admissible where the
2002 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of                 author of that measure was under an obligation, imposed
the European Communities in Case T-17/00 Willy Rothley                      by a higher-ranking legal provision, to take account of
and 70 other Members of the European Parliament v The                       the special situation of the applicants, was not applicable
European Parliament, supported by the Council of the Euro-                  to the case at issue.
pean Union, the Commission of the European Communities,
the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the French Republic
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                     Both the investigative powers of the OLAF on the one
Communities on 26 February 2002 by Willy Rothley and 70                     hand, and the obligations to provide information and to
other Members of the European Parliament, represented by                    permit, and cooperate with, the activities of the OLAF
Dr Hans-Jürgen Rabe, Rechtsanwalt, Nörr Stiefenhofer Lutz,                  imposed on the Members of Parliament, their employees
Charlottenstrasse 57, D-10117 Berlin.                                       and the staff of the Parliament by the contested decision
                                                                            on the other, significantly encroach upon the right to
                                                                            independent and free exercise of their mandate. The
                                                                            OLAF’s powers of intervention and action, considered as
The appellants claim that the Court should:                                 a whole, infringe or circumvent the immunities accorded
                                                                            to Members of the Parliament under Article 10 of the
1.    set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the          Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the Euro-
      European Communities (Fifth Chamber) of 26 February                   pean Communities. The contested decision and the
      2002 (1);                                                             powers which that decision confers on the OLAF to carry
                                                                            out investigations in the Parliament also significantly
2.    annul the decision of the European Parliament of 18 Nov-              encroach upon the right of committees of inquiry to
      ember 1999 on the amendments to the Rules of Pro-                     conduct investigations, thereby adversely affecting the
      cedure following the Interinstitutional Agreement of                  rights of the members of such committees, in particular,
      25 May 1999 on the internal investigations conducted                  those of the appellants.
      by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) (2) in so far as
      it concerns the Members of the European Parliament,
                                                                       —    Breach of the principle of effective judicial protection: the
      in the alternative,                                                   Court failed to consider whether its interpretation of the
                                                                            fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC ensured effective
      refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for a              judicial protection for the appellants or whether, in
      new judgment;                                                         particular in respect of the condition requiring that an
                                                                            applicant be individually concerned, the Court should
                                                                            have applied an interpretation which afforded the appel-
3.    order the European Parliament (respondent) to pay the
                                                                            lants adequate judicial protection against the contested
      costs.
                                                                            decision.
Pleas in law and main arguments
—     Infringement of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC:          (1) Not yet published in the European Court Reports.
      in the contested judgment, the Court of First Instance           (2) OJ 1999 L 2002, p. 1.
      incorrectly found that the appellants were not, according
      to any conceivable criterion established in the case-law of
      the Court, individually concerned by the contested legal
      measure. Both the content and the effects of the contested


title: Case T-438/05: Order of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 11 May 2007 — Daishowa Seiki v Tengelmann Warenhandelsgesellschaft (BIG PLUS)

text:
               7.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/42

         Order of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 11 May 2007 — Daishowa Seiki v Tengelmann Warenhandelsgesellschaft (BIG PLUS)
   (Case T-438/05) (1)

   (2007/C 155/76)

      Language of the case: English

   The President of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 96, 22.4.2006.


title: Case C-414/15 P: Appeal brought on 29 July 2015 by Stichting Woonlinie and Others against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) made on 12 May 2015 in Case T-202/10 RENV Stichting Woonlinie and Others v European Commission

text:
               12.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 337/8

         Appeal brought on 29 July 2015 by Stichting Woonlinie and Others against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) made on 12 May 2015 in Case T-202/10 RENV Stichting Woonlinie and Others v European Commission

   (Case C-414/15 P)
   (2015/C 337/10)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Appellants: Stichting Woonlinie, Stichting Allee Wonen, Woningstichting Volksbelang, Stichting WoonInvest, Stichting Woonstede (represented by: P. Glazener, advocaat, and L. Hancher, professor)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Kingdom of Belgium, Vereniging van Institutionele Beleggers in Vastgoed, Nederland (IVBN)

      Form of order sought

   The appellants claim that the Court should:

               —

               set aside, in whole or in part, the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 May 2015 in Case T-202/10 RENV, in accordance with the grounds raised in the present appeal;

               —

               refer the case back to the General Court for a new ruling consistent with the legal findings of the Court of Justice;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs both of the present proceedings and of the proceedings before the General Court.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   According to the first ground, the General Court infringed EU law, incorrectly assessed the relevant facts and provided an inadequate statement of reasons for the order in finding that the applicants’ objections were in fact directed against the Article 17 letter and that the General Court’s review could not be extended to those objections. By its assessment, the General Court disregards the fact that, as is apparent from Article 108(1) TFEU, the justification for the legal consequences of the decision must stem from the fact that the previous situation had been incompatible with the Treaty. The General Court misinterprets the TF1 judgment by inferring from it that its review of the contested decision had to be limited to the question of whether the Commission had correctly assessed the compatibility of the existing system of aid as modified by the commitments undertaken by the Netherlands authorities.
   According to the second ground, the General Court infringed EU law, incorrectly assessed the relevant facts and provided an inadequate statement of reasons for the order in finding that it could not assess the appropriate measures proposed by the Commission given that they were mere proposals and that it was the adoption by the Netherlands authorities which gave the appropriate measures binding force.


title: Case C-586/14: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 9 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj — Romania)) — Vasile Budișan v Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Cluj (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Internal taxation — Article 110 TFEU — Tax levied by a Member State on motor vehicles at the time of their first registration or of the first transfer of the right of ownership — Fiscal neutrality as between second-hand motor vehicles imported from other Member States and similar motor vehicles available on the domestic market)

text:
               16.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/10

         Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 9 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj — Romania)) — Vasile Budișan v Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Cluj
   (Case C-586/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Internal taxation - Article 110 TFEU - Tax levied by a Member State on motor vehicles at the time of their first registration or of the first transfer of the right of ownership - Fiscal neutrality as between second-hand motor vehicles imported from other Member States and similar motor vehicles available on the domestic market))
   (2016/C 296/13)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel Cluj

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Vasile Budișan

      Respondent: Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Cluj

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 110 TFEU must be interpreted as:

               —

               not precluding a Member State from introducing a tax on motor vehicles which is levied on imported second-hand vehicles at the time of their first registration in that Member State and on vehicles already registered in that Member State at the time of the first transfer, within that Member State, of the ownership of those vehicles;

               —

               precluding that Member State from exempting from that tax vehicles already registered and in respect of which a tax previously in force but found to be incompatible with EU law has been paid and not repaid.

      (1)  OJ C 107, 30.3.2015.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 December 2004 in Case T-8/03 El Corte Inglés, SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Figurative mark EMILIO PUCCI — Opposition by the proprietor of the national figurative marks EMIDIO TUCCI — Partial refusal to register)

text:
               19.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/23

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 13 December 2004
   in Case T-8/03 El Corte Inglés, SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Figurative mark EMILIO PUCCI - Opposition by the proprietor of the national figurative marks EMIDIO TUCCI - Partial refusal to register)
   (2005/C 45/52)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case T-8/03: El Corte Inglés, SA, established in Madrid (Spain), represented by J. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer, against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: P. Bullock and O. Montalto), the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the Court, being Emilio Pucci Srl, established in Florence (Italy), represented by P.L. Roncaglia, G. Lazzeretti and M. Boletto, lawyers – action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 October 2002 (Joined Cases R 700/2000-4 and R 746/2000-4) relating to the opposition entered by the proprietor of the national figurative marks EMIDIO TUCCI against registration of the figurative mark EMILIO PUCCI as a Community trade mark – the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President, A.W.H. Meij and N. Forwood, Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 13 December 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 70 of 22.3.2003


title: Case F-23/07: Action brought on 19 March 2007 — M v EMEA

text:
               26.5.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 117/35

         Action brought on 19 March 2007 — M v EMEA
   (Case F-23/07)
   (2007/C 117/55)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: M (Broxbourne, United Kingdom) (represented by S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (EMEA)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 25 October 2006 by which the Executive Director of the EMEA refused the applicant's request for referral to the Invalidity Committee;

               —

               Order the EMEA to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 100 000 by way of damages for breach of administrative duty;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   On 17 March 2005, the applicant, a member of temporary staff with the EMEA, suffered an accident at work, as a result of which it is alleged that he became incapable of doing his job. On 14 February 2006, he was informed that his contract would not be renewed beyond 15 October 2006. His request for referral to the Invalidity Committee was rejected.
   In support of his action, the applicant relies in particular on the breach of the first paragraph of Article 31 and the first paragraph of Article 33 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants (CEOS), as interpreted by the Civil Service Tribunal in its judgment of 16 January 2007 in Case F-119/05 Gesner v OHIM (not yet published in the ECR).


title: Case C-18/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d'Instance de Bordeaux (France) lodged on 21 January 2008 — Foselev Sud-Ouest SARL v Administration des douanes et des droits indirects

text:
               29.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/19

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d'Instance de Bordeaux (France) lodged on 21 January 2008 — Foselev Sud-Ouest SARL v Administration des douanes et des droits indirects
   (Case C-18/08)
   (2008/C 79/32)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Tribunal d'Instance de Bordeaux
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Foselev Sud-Ouest SARL

      Defendant: Administration des douanes et des droits indirects
   Question referred
   Article 6(2)(b) of Directive 1999/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures (1) provides for the possibility for a Member State to exempt certain categories of vehicle. In this context, is the authorisation given to France by the Commission on 20 June 2005 (2), in Decision 2005/449/EC, to exempt certain categories of vehicles directly applicable to individuals or, as it concerns an authorisation decision addressed to France, is a measure transposing it into national law necessary?

      (1)  OJ 1999 L 187, p. 42.

      (2)  2005/449/EC: Commission Decision of 20 June 2005 concerning a request for exemption from the vehicle tax rules submitted by France pursuant to Article 6(2)(b) of Directive 1999/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures (OJ 2005 L 158, p. 23).


title: Case T-158/04: Action brought on 26 April 2004 by Erich Drazdansky against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
               28.8.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/19

         Action brought on 26 April 2004 by Erich Drazdansky against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   (Case T-158/04)
   (2004/C 217/36)
   Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2) of the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was submitted: German
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 26 April 2004 by Erich Drazdansky, resident in Wiener Neustadt (Austria), represented by A. Leeb, lawyer.
   The Concentrate Manufacturing Company of Ireland, also trading as Seven-Up International, Hamilton (Bermuda), was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               grant it restitutio in integrum;

               —

               alternatively annul the Office's decision and direct it to reach a fresh decision on the application;

               —

               order the defendant, in any event, to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The applicant lodged an application with the defendant Office for the word mark 'UUP'S' for goods in Class 32 (Application No 1 968 676). Opposition to that mark was lodged by The Concentrate Manufacturing Company of Ireland, holder of the Community trade mark and Spanish word mark ‘UP’ for goods in Classes 30 and 32.
   By decision of 31 July 2003, notified on 1 August 2003 by fax, the Opposition Division upheld the opposition. By letter of 1 October 2003, received by the Office on 7 October 2003, the applicant appealed against that decision. By letter of 23 October 2003 the clerks' office of the Board of Appeal informed the applicant that the appeal had not been lodged within the time limit and requested the applicant to submit his observations on that point. The applicant subsequently lodged an application for restitutio in integrum.
   By a decision of 3 March 2004 the Second Board of Appeal of the Office rejected that application and the applicant's appeal.
   The applicant submits that the appeal was signed by the applicant's representative on the last day before expiry of the time limit and placed on the pile of post to be sent out by fax. However, by error, after payment of the appeal fee, the employee responsible for the post did not replace the item with the others to be sent by fax but with those to be sent by recorded mail.
   The applicant claims that, in reaching the contested decision, the Office failed to apply correctly the rules in Regulation No 40/94 governing restitutio in integrum. Had they been correctly applied, the Office would have been obliged to conclude that the requirements for restitutio in integrum were fulfilled in the present case, since there was no organisational fault which would prevent restitution in integrum and the rules on late payment of fees in the fees regulations would have been applicable by analogy.
   The applicant submits that objectively this is a case of a minor oversight that could not be prevented by reasonable commercial methods of organisation. It should also be borne in mind that the other party in the appeal proceedings suffered no procedural disadvantage.


title: Case T-143/14: Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — EE v OHIM (Representation of white dots on a yellow background) (Community trade mark — Application for a Community figurative mark representing white dots on a yellow background — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               26.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 354/32

         Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — EE v OHIM (Representation of white dots on a yellow background)
   (Case T-143/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for a Community figurative mark representing white dots on a yellow background - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 354/36)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: EE Ltd (Hatfield, United Kingdom) (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 November 2013 (Case R 703/2013-2) relating to an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a figurative sign representing white dots on a yellow background.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders EE Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 135, 5.5.2014.


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 September 2005 in Case C-37/03 P: BioID AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Word and figurative mark — BioID — Absolute ground for refusal to register — Trade mark devoid of any distinctive character)

text:
               29.10.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 271/1

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Third Chamber)
   of 15 September 2005
   in Case C-37/03 P: BioID AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Word and figurative mark - BioID - Absolute ground for refusal to register - Trade mark devoid of any distinctive character)
   (2005/C 271/02)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-37/03 P: appeal under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice lodged at the Court on 3 February 2003 by BioID AG, established in Berlin (Germany), in judicial liquidation, (Rechtsanwalt: A. Nordemann), the other party to the proceedings being the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: A. von Mühlendahl and G. Schneider,) — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, J. P. Puissochet, S. von Bahr, J. Malenovský and A. Ó Caoimh (Rapporteur), Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; M. Ferreira, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 15 September 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 5 December 2002 in Case T-91/01 BioID v OHIM (BioID) [2002] ECR II-5159;

               2.

               Dismisses the action against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 February 2001;

               3.

               Orders the appellant to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

      (1)  OJ 70, 22.03.2003.


title: Action brought on 2 September 1996 by Hendrick Smets against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-134/96)

text:
No C 318/20            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  26 . 10 . 96
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            The applicant claims that the Court should :
— annul the two decisions of the Secretary-General of the              — annul the Commission's decision of 7 August 1995 ,
    Economic and Social Committee by implication                           fixing the applicant's travelling time at two days, and
    rejecting the applicant's two complaints of 4 February                 also any subsequent similar decision,
    1996 , in particular on the grounds: 1 . that the Economic
    and    Social  Committee       should    have   awarded    the
    applicant the education allowances for his children, Y. ,          — in so far as is necessary, annul the decision adopted by
    M. and L. , for the 1995/ 1996 scholastic year, amounting              the Commission on 17 April 1996 expressly rejecting the
    to a total of Bfrs 1 9 080 , as applied for in the application         applicant's complaint,
    made in that regard dated 31 August 1995 and, further,
    2 . that the Economic and Social Committee should have
                                                                       — declare the Commission's internal directive adopted on
    altered the date from which the allowance was to be paid               21 December 1994 and published in the Administrative
    in respect of M. from 1 September 1995 to 1 August                     Notices on 4 January 1995 illegal and, in consequence,
    1995 ,                                                                 order it to be withdrawn,
— order the Economic and Social Committee to pay the
    costs, including the costs which the applicant has had to          — allow the applicant travelling time of eight and a half
    incur in connection with these proceedings, in particular              days for 1995 and also for subsequent years or at least
    the costs of providing an address for service, travelling              travelling time calculated on the basis of Administrative
    and accommodation expenses, and legal fees.                            Circular No 26a of 6 November 1991 ,
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support                    — order the defendant to pay all the costs of the
                                                                           proceedings .
The applicant, a former official receiving an invalidity
pension from the European Communities, applied to the                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
Economic and Social Committee, first, for the grant of the
variable ( not flat-rate ) education allowance to cover the
travel expenses in respect of his three children and, second,         The applicant, who is the Head of the Commission's
for an increase in the flat-rate education allowance for one           Delegation in the Republic of Chad challenges the decision
of his children .                                                     to limit to two days the travelling time added to his annual
                                                                       leave, taken pursuant to the internal directive adopted by
The first application was by implication rejected, as was the         the Commission on 21 December 1994 . Until then, the
complaint submitted in that regard; the second application            applicant had for several years been entitled to eight and a
was granted, but with effect from a date later than that              half days travelling time, in accordance with Administrative
                                                                       Circular No 26a of 6 November 1991 .
requested by the applicant. The complaint submitted in that
regard was by implication rejected .
                                                                      In support of his application, the applicant pleads, first,
The applicant has now brought an action before the Court              infringement of Administrative Circular No 26a, claiming
for the annulment of those two implied decisions refusing             that it is nowhere stated in the internal directive of
his requests .                                                        21 December 1994 that it annuls or amends the circular in
                                                                      question and that there is no statement of reasons for the
                                                                      directive which might explain why the circular no longer
                                                                      meets requirements and why a sudden major change in
                                                                      travelling time was necessary. He concludes therefrom that
                                                                      the 1991 circular is still applicable and that the contested
                                                                      decision plainly fails to comply with that provision .
Action brought on 2 September 1996 by Hendrick Smets
  against the Commission of the European Communities                  The applicant also pleads breach of the principle of
                        ( Case T-134/96 )                             protection of legitimate expectations, claiming that the
                                                                      defendant     has   caused   him   to   entertain  reasonable
                          ( 96/C 318/37 )
                                                                      expectations as to the length of travelling time in so far as it
                                                                      laid down certain criteria in that regard in provisions
                (Language of the case: French)                        adopted in the form of a circular and applied them for
                                                                      several years . In the applicant's opinion, the fact that the
                                                                      travelling time which he could claim had been reduced
An action against the Commission of the European                      without any reasons at all being given constitutes disregard
Communities was brought before the Court of First                     of established rights and infringement of the principle of the
Instance of the European Communities on 2 September                   protection of legitimate expectations .
1996 by Hendrick Smets, residing at N'djamena ( Chad ),
represented by Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Fiduciaire         Furthermore, he considers that to treat officials serving in a
Myson SARL, 1 rue Glesener.                                           third country in the same way as officials serving within the
 ---pagebreak--- 26 . 10 . 96           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 318 /21
Community, as the defendant has done with regard to                        small and medium-sized undertakings referred to in
travelling time, constitutes discrimination against officials              Article 2 ( 2 ) of the Agreement on social policy,
serving in a third country. He notes that, in the defendant's
view, an official who is entitled to reimbursement of the cost
of an air ticket on the ground that the distance between his          — order the Council to pay the costs .
place of employment and his place of origin is more than
500 kilometres, whether he is serving in a third country or
within the Community, cannot be allowed more than two                 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
days travelling time unless he produces evidence that he
needs additional time, whereas , in the applicant's view, the         This action concerns the first Directive to implement an
two situations are fundamentally different. The two days'             agreement concluded by management and labour at
travelling time given to officials serving in the Community is        Community level on the basis of the Agreement on social
intended for officials whose place of employment is a few             policy annexed to the Protocol on social policy annexed to
hundred kilometres from their place of origin, whereas                the Treaty of Rome as amended by the Maastricht Treaty .
officials serving in third countries are often several thousand       The applicant, an employers ' association combining small
kilometres from their place of origin, in local conditions            and medium-sized undertakings at European level ,
which make journeys longer and more arduous .                         challenges that Directive , in so far as it concerns those
                                                                      undertakings .
Last, the applicant claims that the directive adopted on
21 December 1994 is unlawful, in that it was adopted
without prior consultation of the joint committees in                 As early as 1983 the Commission drew up a proposal for a
accordance with Article 1 10 of the Staff Regulations, and in         Directive on parental leave and leave for family reasons .
that it contains no valid statement of the reasons on which it        When that proposal was blocked , the Commission decided
is based but does contain numerous instances of                       in January 1995 to make use in this matter of the new
inconsistency,         inaccuracy,        imprecision       and       procedure provided for in the Agreement on social policy .
contradictions .                                                      During the initial consultations with management and
                                                                      labour, in accordance with Article 3 ( 2 ) of the Agreement,
                                                                      the applicant was thus consulted, together with other
                                                                      organizations . It was, by contrast, systematically excluded
                                                                      from the negotiations which led to the adoption of the
                                                                      measure, even though it had on several occasions expressed
                                                                      the wish to be included and given reasons why it should
Action brought on 5 September 1996 by the European                    be .
 Association of Craft, Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises
          against the Council of the European Union
                                                                      The applicant considers that the contested act is of direct
                          Case T-135 /96 )                            and individual concern to it. It observes in that respect that
                          ( 96/C 318/38 )                             Article 2 ( 2 ) of the Agreement on social policy expressly
                                                                      refers to the need not to hold back the creation and
                                                                      development of small and medium-sized undertakings .
                (Language of the case: French)                        More specifically, the question of parental leave is of crucial
                                                                       importance for small and medium-sized undertakings .
 An action against the Council of the European Union was
 brought before the Court of First Instance of the European           The applicant submits that clause 2 ( 3 ) ( f) of the framework
 Communities on 5 September 1996 by the European                       Agreement, by providing merely for the possibility of
 Association of Craft, Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises ,            authorizing special arrangements to meet the operational
 established at Brussels, represented by Francis Herbert, of           and organizational requirements of small undertakings, fails
 the Brussels Bar, and Genevieve Tuts , of the Liege Bar, with         to satisfy the requirement of the said Article 2 ( 2 ), in that an
 an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of               obligation has become a possibility and medium-sized
 Carlos Zeyen, 67 rue Ermesinde .                                      undertakings are not mentioned . The applicant states in this
                                                                       respect that by letter of 13 December 1 995 it made criticisms
 The applicant claims that the Court should :                          of the framework Agreement, concentrating on the
                                                                       following three points : the failure to extend to
     primarily:                                                        medium-sized undertakings the possibility of postponing
                                                                       parental leave for reasons related to the undertaking;
 — annul , pursuant to Article 173 of the EC Treaty, Council           inclusion of a system of exceptions to protection against
     Directive 96/34/EC of 3 June 1996 on the framework                dismissal in cases where the employer's economic interests
     agreement on parental leave concluded by Unice, CEEP              are prejudiced by maintaining the contract of employment
     and the ETUC (').                                                 during and after parental leave ; and the need, with respect to
                                                                       the craft sector, to limit the right to parental leave to the
     in the alternative :                                              period of infancy.
 — annul , pursuant to Article 173 of the EC Treaty, the said          The applicant pleads breach of the principle of equality, of
     Directive with respect solely to its application to the           Articles 2 ( 2 ), 3 ( 3 ) and 4 of the Agreement on social policy,


title: Case C-99/14 P: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 December 2014  — Federación Nacional de Empresarios de Minas de Carbón (Carbunión) v Council of the European Union, European Commission (Appeals — State aid — Decision 2010/787/EU — Aid to facilitate the closure of uncompetitive coal mines — Conditions for considering that aid compatible with the internal market — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court)

text:
               23.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/17

         Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 December 2014 — Federación Nacional de Empresarios de Minas de Carbón (Carbunión) v Council of the European Union, European Commission
   (Case C-99/14 P) (1)

   ((Appeals - State aid - Decision 2010/787/EU - Aid to facilitate the closure of uncompetitive coal mines - Conditions for considering that aid compatible with the internal market - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court))
   (2015/C 065/24)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Federación Nacional de Empresarios de Minas de Carbón (Carbunión) (represented by: K. Desai, solicitor, and S. Cisnal de Ugarte, abogado)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: F. Florindo Gijón and P. Mahnič Bruni, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, É. Gippini Fournier and C. Urraca Caviedes, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the order

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders La Federación Nacional de Empresarios de Minas de Carbón (Carbunión) to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 112, 14.4.2014.