title: Case C-274/05: Action brought on 4 July 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
               17.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 229/6

         Action brought on 4 July 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-274/05)
   (2005/C 229/13)
   Language of the case: Greek
   An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 4 July 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Georgios Zavvos and Hans Støvlbæk, members of its Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that:

                           —

                           by failing to recognise the diplomas awarded by the competent authorities of another Member State in the context of studies on a franchise basis, under licence,

                           —

                           by providing for the imposition of compensatory measures in more cases than those allowed by the directive,

                           —

                           by entrusting to the Council for the Recognition of Professional Equivalence of Higher-Education Titles examination as to whether ‘the educational establishment in which the applicant received his professional education and training should be classified as higher education’ and whether ‘the applicant has the necessary professional experience, in a case where the duration of the education falls short by at least one year from that required in Greece in order to exercise that profession’,

                           —

                           by failing to take into account the professional recognition of professional qualifications acquired in another Member State as regards employment in the public sector and registration in the Technical Chamber of Greece, and

                           —

                           by requiring the production of supporting documents certified by the Greek Consular authorities and translated by the Ministry for Foreign Affairs or by a lawyer for the purposes of registration in the Technical Chamber of Greece,

                     the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 1, 3, 4, 7, 8 and 10 of Council Directive 89/48/EEC (1) of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years' duration

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Commission complains that the Hellenic Republic did not transpose correctly into its national legal system the provisions of Directive 89/48/EEC.

      (1)  OJ L 19 of 24.1.1989.


title: Case C-123/06: Order of the President of the Court of 21 August 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/38

         Order of the President of the Court of 21 August 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-123/06) (1)

   (2006/C 294/77)

      Language of the case: Greek

   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 96, 22.04.2006.


21 . 1 . 97      | EN |                 Official Journal of the European Communities            No C 21 / 19
                                                                III
                                                              (Notices)
                                   EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
                                           COURT OF JUSTICE
                     NOTICE CONCERNING THE ORGANIZATION OF OPEN COMPETITIONS
                                                          (97 /C 21 / 11 )
            The Secretariat of the European Parliament and the Court of Justice of the European
            Communities are organizing the following open competitions ('):
            EUR/A/ 1 11 — Portuguese-language Administrators
                               (Grades A 7-A 6)
            EUR/A/ 1 12 — Portuguese-language Assistant Administrators
                               (Grade A 8 )
             ( ) OJ No C 21 A, 21 . 1 . 1997 (Portuguese edition).


title: Action brought on 17 June 1997 by Smanor SA, Hubert Segaud and Monique Segaud against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-182/97)

text:
C 271/18              1 EN I                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    6 . 9 . 97
Action brought on 13 June 1997 by Maurizio Munaro                        Roques, of the Val de Marne Bar, with an address for
   against the Commission of the European Communities                    service at 9 Rue du Général de Larminat, Créteil (France ).
                          ( Case T-180/97)
                            ( 97/C 271 /29 )                             The applicant claims that the Court should:
                 (Language of the case: French)                          — annul the letter of the Secretary General of the
                                                                             Commission of 21 May 1997.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Instance of the European Communities on 13 June 1997
by Maurizio Munaro, residing in Boussu ( Belgium ),
represented by Nicolas Lhoëst, of the Brussels Bar, with an              The applicants challenge the decision of the Commission
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of                      not to take action on their complaint, concerning the
Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange.                               alleged failure of the French authorities to fulfil their
                                                                         obligations under Articles 30 to 36 of the EC Treaty,
                                                                         without examining certain documents which they consider
The applicant claims that the Court should :                             to be essential to prove the infringements complained of.
                                                                         In support of their action for annulment, they plead
                                                                         manifest and serious failure to observe :
— annul the Commission's decision of 12 August 19 96
     rejecting the applicant's request that it give
     consideration to the possible application of                        — the fundamental rights recognized under the European
     Article 31 (2 ) of the Staff Regulations,                               Convention on Human Rights,
— annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision                     — the status of res judicata of the judgment delivered by
     adopted by the Commission on 3 February 1997,                           the Court of Justice on 14 July 1988 in Case 298/87,
     expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,
                                                                         — the settled case-law concerning the principles of the
— order the defendant to pay all the costs.                                  liability of Member States for the whole of the harm
                                                                             caused to an individual by breaches of Community
                                                                             law for which they are responsible, and
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                         — the principle of equality of arms, which would militate
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those                     against the Commission's being able to exclude from
relied upon in Case T- 16/97 ( J ).                                          proceedings a number of documents which are
                                                                             essential in order to restore the rights of the parties in
                                                                             question .
(') OJ C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
                                                                         Action brought on 19 June 1997 by Carla Micheli,
Action brought on 17 June 1997 by Smanor SA, Hubert                      Andrea Peirano, Carlo Nike Bianchi and Marinella
Segaud and Monique Segaud against the Commission of                      Abbate     against the     Commission of the European
                    the European Communities                                                      Communities
                          ( Case T-l 82/97 )                                                   ( Case T-183 /97 )
                             ( 97/C 271 /30 )                                                    ( 97/C 271 /31
                 (Language of the case: French)                                          (Language of the case: Italian)
An action against the Commission of the European                         An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                        Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 17 June 1997                     Instance of the European Communities on 19 June 1997
by Smanor SA, established in Saint Martin d'Ecublei                      by Carla Micheli, Andrea Peirano, Carlo Nike Bianchi and
( France ), Hubert Segaud and Monique Segaud, residing at                Marinella Abbate, represented by Wilma Viscardini Dona,
Saint Martin d'Ecublei ( France ), represented by Laurence               Mariano Paolin and Simonetta Dona, of the Padua Bar,


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 20 July 2000 in Case T-137/00 R Cambridge Healthcare Supplies Ltd v Commission of the European Communities (Proceedings for interim relief — Withdrawal of the marketing authorisation for medicinal products for human use containing "phentermine" — Directive 75/319/EEC — Suspension of the operation of the withdrawal decision until a final order in the proceedings for interim relief has been made)

text:
C 316/26                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       4.11.2000
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                             Mongolue and Marc Boixader Rivas residing in Madrid,
                              INSTANCE                                   represented by their legal adviser Diego López Garrido.
                           of 20 July 2000                               The applicants claim that the Court of First Instance should:
in Case T-137/00 R Cambridge Healthcare Supplies Ltd v                   —     Annul the notices of competition for open competitions
         Commission of the European Communities                                EUR/A/159/2000 and PE/90/A; and
(Proceedings for interim relief — Withdrawal of the market-              —     Annul the guide for candidates taking part in interinsti-
ing authorisation for medicinal products for human use                         tutional competitions
containing ‘phentermine’ — Directive 75/319/EEC — Sus-
pension of the operation of the withdrawal decision until a
final order in the proceedings for interim relief has been               Pleas in law and main arguments
                                made)
                                                                         The present action is directed against the notices of compe-
                          (2000/C 316/50)                                tition in respect of open competitions EUR/A/159/2000
                                                                         and PE/90/A (1), in so far as they make admission to the
                   (Language of the case: English)                       competitions subject to the requirement that the applicant is
                                                                         the holder of a Spanish honours degree (‘licenciado’) and has
                                                                         not merely completed a three year university course, such as
In Case T-137/00 R Cambridge Healthcare Supplies Ltd, whose              technical engineering. In conjunction with that claim for
registered office is in Norfolk, United Kingdom, represented             annulment, the action challenges paragraph E 1.(a) of the guide
by D. Vaughan, K. Bacon, Barristers and S. Davis, Solicitor,             for candidates taking part in interinstitutional competitions (2).
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
A. Moro, Kremer Associés and Clifford Chance, 6 Rue Heinrich
Heine v Commission of the European Communities, (Agents:                 In support of their claims, the applicants, who are both
R. Wainwright and H. Støvlbæk), application under                        technical engineers, make the following pleas:
Article 105(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First
Instance for suspension of the operation of the Commission’s             —     The contested documents are vitiated by arbitrariness and
decision of 9 March 2000 concerning the withdrawal of                          misuse of powers.
marketing athorisation of medicinal products for human use
which contain the following substance: ‘Phentermine’ (C(2000)            —     Breach of the principles of equal treatment, pro-
452), the President of the Court has made an order on 20 July                  portionality, legal certainty and legitimate expectations.
2000 the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                         —     Breach of the principle of legality and of the right of
1.    The operation of the Commission Decision of 9 March 2000                 access to employment in the Community civil service.
      concerning the withdrawal of marketing authorisations of
      medicinal products for human use which contain the following       In particular it is claimed that:
      substance: ‘Phentermine’ (C(2000) 452) is suspended until the
      making of the order terminating the proceedings for interim
                                                                         —     the Spanish Supreme Court, in a judgment of 24 January
      relief.
                                                                               2000, held that technical engineers are ‘titulados superior-
2.    The costs are reserved.                                                  es’ (holders of higher educational qualifications);
                                                                         —     while Spanish technical engineers do not have access to
                                                                               Category A posts in the European civil service, such posts
                                                                               are open to other professionals who have completed
                                                                               degree courses of a similar length, such as German,
                                                                               English or Irish engineers; and
Action brought on 9 August 2000 by Jeremı́as Augusto
Barleycorn Mongolue and Marc Boixader Rivas against                      —     the defendant institutions infringed Article 5 of the
the Council of the European Union and the European                             Staff Regulations in so far as the expression ‘university
                              Parliament                                       education’, which is found in that provision, is translated
                                                                               in the contested documents by expressions such as
                                                                               ‘higher’ (‘superior’) university education, ‘honours degree’
                          (Case T-208/00)
                                                                               (‘licenciatura’) and ‘university degree awarded on com-
                                                                               pletion of a course of studies of a particular length’ (‘ciclo
                          (2000/C 316/51)                                      largo’).
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)                       (1) OJ C 162 A, 10.6.2000, p. 10 (Spanish-language edition).
                                                                         (2) Ibid. p. 1.
An action against the Council of the European Union and the
European Parliament was brought before the Court of First
Instance on 9 August 2000 by Jeremı́as Augusto Barleycorn


title: ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 26 February 1997 in Case T-191/96 R: C. A. S. Succhi di Frutta SpA v. Commission of the European Communities (Competition - Procedure on application for interim measures - Application for suspension of operation of a measure)

text:
31 . 5 . 97           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 166/ 13
          Removal from the register of C-339/96 ( ] )               a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal des Affaires de Sé
                         ( 97/C 166/28 )                            curité Sociale des Bouches du Rhône ): Joao Farias v.
                                                                    Caisse Régionale d'Assurance Maladie du Sud-est.
By order of 5 March 1997 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-339/96 ( reference for              OJ No C 354 , 23 . 11 . 1996 .
                                                   COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
               ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT                                               ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
           OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                     OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 3 March 1997
                     of 26 February 1997
                                                                    in Case T-6/97 R: Comafrica SpA and Dole Fresh Fruit
in Case T-191/96 R: C. A. S. Succhi di Frutta SpA v.                Europe Ltd & Co. v. Commission of the European
          Commission of the European Communities                                                Communities
(Competition — Procedure on application for interim                 (Common organization of the markets — Bananas —
measures — Application for suspension of operation of a             Provisional reduction coefficient — Suspension of
                            measure)                                operation — Interim measures — Admissibility of the
                                                                    application for interim measures — Serious and
                           97/C 166/29                                                      irreparable harm)
                                                                                ( 97/C 166/30 )
                (Language of the case: Italian)                                     (Language of the case: English)
                                                                    In Case T-6/97 R, Comafrica SpA, established in Genoa,
                                                                    Italy, and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe Ltd & Co., established
In Case T-191/96 R: C. A. S. Succhi di Frutta SpA,                  in Hamburg, Germany, represented by Bernard O'Connor,
established in Verona ( Italy), represented by Alberto              Solicitor, and Bonifacio Garcia Porras, of the Salamanca
Miele, of the Padua Bar, Antonio Tizzano and Gian                   Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Michele Roberti, of the Naples Bar, and Carlo Scarpa, of            Chambers of Arsène Kronshagen, 22 Avenue Marie-
the Venice Bar, with an address for service at the Tizzano          Adèlaïde, against Commission of the European
Chambers, 36 Place du Grand Sablon, Brussels, v.                    Communities (Agent: Xavier Lewis ) — application under
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: Paolo               Articles 185 and 186 of the EC Treaty for: ( i ) an order
Ziotti and Alberto Dal Ferro ) — application for                    suspending operation of Commission Regulation ( EEC )
suspension of operation of the decision of the Commission           No 2035/96 of 24 October 1996 fixing the single
                                                                    reduction     coefficient     for  the  determination of  the
of 6 September 1996 amending its decision of 14 June
 1996 on the supply of fruit juice and fruit jams intended          provisional quantity of bananas to be allocated to each
for the people of Armenia and Azerbaijan, provided for by           operator in Categories A and B from the tariff quota for
Regulation ( EC ) No 228/96 — the President of the Court            1997 ( OJ No L 272, 1996 , p. 6 ) in so far as that
of First Instance made an order on 26 February 1997, the            regulation affects the applicants; or, alternatively, erga
operative part of which is as follows :                             omnes, ( ii ) an order that the correct number of licences be
                                                                    issued to the applicants in accordance with their rights
                                                                    under Community law; and ( iii ) any additional orders
                                                                    which the Court considers necessary for the purposes of
                                                                    granting interim relief to the applicants — the President of
 1 . the application for interim measures is dismissed;             the Court of First Instance made an order on 3 March
                                                                     1997, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                     1.  The application for interim measures is dismissed.
 2.  the costs are reserved.
                                                                    2.   Costs are reserved.


title: Case T-742/15 P: Judgment of the General Court of 19 July 2017 — DD v FRA (Appeal — Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Contract of indefinite duration — Disciplinary penalty — Reprimand — Termination of contract — Right to be heard — Non-material harm)

text:
               28.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/36

         Judgment of the General Court of 19 July 2017 — DD v FRA
   (Case T-742/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Contract of indefinite duration - Disciplinary penalty - Reprimand - Termination of contract - Right to be heard - Non-material harm))
   (2017/C 283/53)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: DD (represented: initially, by L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche and, subsequently, by L. Levi, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) (represented by: M. O’Flaherty, acting as Agent, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 8 October 2015, DD v FRA (F-106/13 and F-25/14, EU:F:2015:118), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders DD to bear his own costs;

               3.

               Orders the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 111, 29.3.2016.


title: Case T-302/04: Action brought on 26 July 2004 by Maison de l'Europe Avignon Méditerranée against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               23.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/40

         Action brought on 26 July 2004 by Maison de l'Europe Avignon Méditerranée against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-302/04)
   (2004/C 262/76)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 26 July 2004 by Maison de l'Europe Avignon Méditerranée, established in Avignon (France), represented by François Martineau, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               order the Commission to pay the sum of EUR 394 066.76 in respect of its failure to perform its financial obligations to the Maison de l'Europe Avignon Méditerranée;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the entirety of the recoverable costs the amount of which is fixed in the sum of EUR 10 000.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   According to the applicant, the Commission had since 1996 informally allowed the applicant to set up an Info Point Europe. In 2000, the applicant entered into an agreement with the Commission for the creation of an Info Point Europe, in the applicant's view thereby formalising the situation. In 2004, the agreement was terminated by the Commission.
   By this action, the applicant seeks to have the Commission held contractually liable in order to obtain payment for the supplies rendered by the applicant since 1996 in the context of its task as a European information centre for the Commission.
   According to the applicant, the Commission has breached its contractual obligations and is liable for interest for late payment, for services rendered during the festival of Avignon and for the cost of running a European documentation centre since 1996.


title: Case C-656/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 February 2014 — United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v Council of the European Union (Coordination of social security systems — Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons — Council decision — Choice of legal basis — Article 48 TFEU — Article 79(2)(b) TFEU)

text:
               14.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/2

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 February 2014 — United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-656/11) (1)

   ((Coordination of social security systems - Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons - Council decision - Choice of legal basis - Article 48 TFEU - Article 79(2)(b) TFEU))
   2014/C 112/02
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented initially by C. Murrell and subsequently by M. Holt, Agents, and by A. Dashwood QC)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Ireland (represented by E. Creedon, L. Williams and J. Stanley, Agents, and by N.J. Travers BL)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented initially by G. Marhic and M. Veiga and subsequently by A. De Elera, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: French Republic (represented by G. de Bergues and N. Rouam, Agents), European Commission (represented initially by V. Kreuschitz and subsequently by S. Pardo Quintillán and J. Enegren, Agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment — Council Decision of 16 December 2011 on the position to be taken by the European Union in the Joint Committee established under the Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons as regards the replacement of Annex II to that Agreement on the coordination of social security schemes (OJ L 2011 341, p. 1) — Choice of legal basis — Article 48 TFEU (adoption, in the field of social security, of necessary measures to provide freedom of movement for workers) or Article 79(2)(b) TFEU (rights of third-country nationals residing legally in a Member State) — Practical effect of this choice on the rights and obligations of the United Kingdom, by reason of Protocol No 21 on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

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

               3.

               Orders Ireland, the French Republic and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 49, 18.2.2012.


title: Case T-231/15: Action brought on 5 May 2015 — Haswani v Council

text:
               29.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/40

         Action brought on 5 May 2015 — Haswani v Council
   (Case T-231/15)
   (2015/C 213/65)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: George Haswani (Yabroud, Syria) (represented by: G. Karouni, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/375 of 6 March 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria insofar as it concerns the applicant;

               —

               annul Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2015/383 of 6 March 2015 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria insofar as it concerns the applicant;

               —

               order, as a result, that Mr George Haswani’s name be removed from the annexes to the above-mentioned acts;

               —

               order the Council to pay EUR 7 00  000 in damages to compensate all forms of loss suffered;

               —

               order the Council to pay its own costs and the costs of the applicant, which he reserves the right to justify during the course of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law: the Council violated the applicant’s right of defence, right to a hearing and right to a fair trial.

               2.

               Second plea in law: the Council failed to state reasons to the extent that the reasoning of the contested acts is insufficient and imprecise.

               3.

               Third plea in law: the Council committed a manifest error of assessment and failed to provide evidence to the extent that there are no genuine and reasonable grounds for the restrictive measures taken against the applicant.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law: the Council infringed the general principle of proportionality.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law: the Council should compensate the applicant.


title: Action brought on 27 March 1995 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium (Case C-98/95)

text:
24 . 6 . 95         |_EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 159/7
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   Communities, represented by Antonio Caeiro, acting as
                                                                      Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in           office of Georgios Kremlis, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg .
Case C-79/95 ; the period prescribed for the transposition of
the Directive expired on 1 January 1993 .                             The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                      — declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
                                                                            time limit all the measures necessary in order to comply
                                                                            with Council Directive 89/666/EEC ( l ) of 21 December
                                                                            1989 concerning disclosure requirements in respect of
Action brought on 24 March 1995 by the Commission of
                                                                            branches opened in a Member State by certain types of
the European Communities against the Federal Republic of
                                                                            company governed by the law of another State and
                              Germany                                       Council Directive 89/667/EEC ( 2 ) of the same date on
                        ( Case C-96/95 )                                    single-member private limited-liability companies, the
                          ( 95/C 159/ 13 )                                  Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                            under the EC Treaty,
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
                                                                      — declare, in the            alternative , that by failing to
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                         communicate to the Commission the texts of the
Communities on 24 March 1 995 by the Commission of the
                                                                            provisions of national law transposing Directives
European Communities, represented by Pieter van Nuffel, a
                                                                            89/666/EEC and 89/667/EEC, pursuant to Article 16 of
member of the Commission's Legal Service, and Horstpeter                    Directive   89/666/EEC and Article        8 of Directive
Kreppel, a judge of the Arbeitsgericht ( Labour Court ) on
                                                                            89/667/EEC, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil
secondment to the Commission's Legal Service, with an
                                                                            its obligations under the EC Treaty,
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Georgios
Kremlis, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg .                                   — order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .
The applicant claims that the Court should :                          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
1 , declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed           The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
     time limit the legal and administrative provisions               in Case C-79/95 ; the time limit prescribed by the two
     necessary to implement Council Directive 90/365/EEC              Directives expired on 1 January 1992 .
     of 28 June 1990 on the right of residence for employees
     and self-employed persons who have ceased their                  f 1 ) OJ No L 395 , 30 . 12 . 1989 , p . 36 .
     occupational activity i 1 ) and Council Directive                ( 2 ) OJ No L 395 , 30 . 12 . 1989 , p . 40 .
     90/364/EEC of 28 June 1 990 on the right of residence ( 2 )
     or, in the alternative, by failing to communicate such
     provisions promptly to the Commission, the Federal
     Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations
     under the EC Treaty;                                             Action brought on 30 March 1995 by the Commission of
                                                                      the European Communities against the Federal Republic of
2 , order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the                                                 Germany
     costs .
                                                                                ( Case C-101/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 159/ 15
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case           An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
C-79/95 ; the time limit for implementation expired on                brought before the Court of Justice of the European
30 June 1992 .                                                        Communities on 30 March 1995 by the Commission of the
                                                                      European Communities, represented by Klaus-Dieter
(M OJ No L 180 , 13 . 7. 1990 , p . 28 .
                                                                      Borchardt, a member of the Commission's Legal Service,
(2 ) OJ No L 180, 13 . 7. 1990, p . 26 .                              with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
                                                                      Georgios Kremlis, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                      1 , declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
Action brought on 27 March 1995 by the Commission of                        time limit the measures necessary to comply with
the European Communities against the Kingdom of                             Council Directive 91 /628/EEC of 19 November 1991 on
                              Belgium                                       the protection of animals during transport and
                        ( Case C-98/95 )                                    amending Directives 90/425/EEC and 91 /496/EEC ( J ),
                                                                            the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its
                          ( 95/C 159/14 )                                   obligations under the EC Treaty and under that
                                                                            Directive;
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on            2 , order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the
27 March 1995 by the Commission of the European                             costs .


title: Action brought on 12 August 1996 by EFIM - Ente Partecipazioni e Finanziamento Industria Manifatturiera, in liquidation, against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-127/96)

text:
No C 318/16           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   26 . 10 . 96
    decision of 29 May 1995 concerning certain State aid                  during the period in which it was producing in order to
    granted by Italy to Breda Fucine Meridionali SpA                      supply the needs of the 'defence sector' is covered by the
    ( COM(96 ) 1643 final ),                                              derogation provided for by Article 223 ( 1 ) ( b ) of the
                                                                         Treaty . In addition, the financial assistance subsequent
— order the Commission to pay the costs of these                         to 1987 can be explained by considerations relating to
    proceedings .                                                        the 'group policy' pursued by the controlling
                                                                         company .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support                   — Misapplication of Article 92 ( 3 ) ( a ) and (c ) of the
                                                                         Treaty.
The applicant in these proceedings is a second smelting                  In this connection the applicant maintains that the
foundry forming part of the EFIM group . Until 1986 two                  Commission infringed that provision, in that it failed to
companies in the defence sector were shareholders in the                 assess correctly the aid granted for reorganization and
applicant company. By the contested decision, the                        restructuring and the importance of the fact that the
Commission declared that State aid alleged to have been                  company is established in a particularly disadvantaged
granted to the applicant was incompatible with the common                region .
market and also that the aid was unlawful inasmuch as prior
notification had not been given in accordance with
Article 93 ( 3 ) of the EC Treaty. The Commission has
moreover ordered the aid to be repaid.
In this respect the applicant puts forward the following
grounds for contesting the decision :                                Action brought on 12 August 1996 by EFIM — Ente
                                                                     Partecipazioni e Finanziamento Industria Manifatturiera, in
                                                                     liquidation, against the Commission of the European
— Breach of procedural rules and of the principal audi                                         Communities
   alteram partem.
                                                                                ( Case T-127/96 )
   According to the applicant, in its communication of                                        ( 96/C 318/31 )
    initiation of the procedure the Commission merely
    referred to the financial support to the sum of Lit 52 000                      (Language of the case: Italian)
    million received by EFIM and loans guaranteed by the
    State of the sum of Lit 10 000 million, without
   mentioning other presumed transfers of funds or the              An action against the Commission of the European
   dates on which those took place . Thus, in that                   Communities was brought before the Court of First
   communication, the defendant did not refer, directly or           Instance of the European Communities on 12 August 1996
   indirectly, to much of the aid challenged in the                  by EFIM — Ente Partecipazioni e Finanziamento Industria
   decision .                                                       Manifatturiera , in liquidation, whose registered office is at
                                                                     Bari, Italy, represented by Antonio Tizzano and Gian
                                                                    Michele Roberti, both of the Naples Bar, with an address for
— Breach of the principles of legal certainty and legitimate         service in Brussels at the Chambers of Antonio Tizzano, 36
   expectations, and failure to observe the five-year               place du Grand Sablon .
   limitation period .
                                                                    The applicant claims that the Court should :
   In the decision, the Commission challenged the grant of
   aid dating from 1985 to 1992 . By so doing, it declared          — annul in whole or, in the alternative, in part ( as regards
   acts and relationships going back a long period of time to            the points referred to in this action ) the Commission 's
   be unlawful . The applicant considers that the defendant              decision of 29 Mai 1995 concerning certain State aid
   ought not to have included such remote acts and                       granted by Italy to Breda Fucine Meridionali SpA
   relationships in its legal appraisal . A precise limitation           ( COM(96 ) 1643 final ),
   period must be complied with even with regard to State
   aid; by analogy with the period fixed for other matters          — order the Commission to pay the costs of these
   ( Article 43 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and               proceedings .
   Regulation ( EEC ) No 2988/74 ), that period should be of
   five years ' duration .
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
— Breach of Article 92 ( 1 ) of the Treaty,
                                                                    The pleas in law and main arguments are identical to those
                                                                    in Case T-126/96 Breda Fucine Meridionali ( M.
   in that the Commission did not establish the nature of
   the aid involved. Specifically, the defendant altogether         (') See page 15 of this Official Journal .
   failed to assess the aid in question in the light of the
   situation as it was when the aid was granted. In that
   regard the applicant states that the assistance given


title: Case T-100/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 26 November 2008 — Rajani v OHIM — Artoz-Papier (ATOZ) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark ATOZ — Earlier international word mark ARTOZ — No requirement to provide evidence of genuine use — Starting point for the five-year time-limit — Date of registration of the earlier mark — Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Obligation to state the reasons on which a measure is based — Articles 73 and 79 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 and Article 6 of the ECHR)

text:
               24.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/25

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 26 November 2008 — Rajani v OHIM — Artoz-Papier (ATOZ)
   (Case T-100/06) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark ATOZ - Earlier international word mark ARTOZ - No requirement to provide evidence of genuine use - Starting point for the five-year time-limit - Date of registration of the earlier mark - Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Obligation to state the reasons on which a measure is based - Articles 73 and 79 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 and Article 6 of the ECHR)
   (2009/C 19/45)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Deepak Rajani (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: A. Dustmann, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Artoz-Papier AG (Lenzburg, Switzerland)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 January 2006 (Case R 1126/2004-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Artoz Papier AG and Deepak Rajani.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Deepak Rajani to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 235, 6.10.2007.


title: Case C-446/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vredegerecht te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 24 July 2017 — Woonhaven Antwerpen v Khalid Berkani, Asmae Hajji

text:
               25.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 318/10

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vredegerecht te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 24 July 2017 — Woonhaven Antwerpen v Khalid Berkani, Asmae Hajji
   (Case C-446/17)
   (2017/C 318/16)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Vredegerecht te Antwerpen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Woonhaven Antwerpen

      Defendants: Khalid Berkani, Asmae Hajji

      Questions referred

               1.

               Should a social housing association recognised by the Flemish Government which rents out social housing to a consumer at a rental price which depends, on the one hand, on the market value determined by that association itself and, on the other hand, on the income and the family composition of the tenant, be considered an undertaking within the meaning of European law?

               2.

               Is the relationship between a recognised social housing association and a consumer when that consumer rents social housing from that social housing association, and in particular Article 11 of the model contract which forms part of that relationship, a contract within the meaning given to that term in Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts?

               3.

               Does a contract or statutory relationship whereby a recognised social housing association rents out social housing to a consumer fall within the scope of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, and should a recognised social housing association which rents out social housing to a consumer at a rental price which depends, on the one hand, on the market value determined by that association itself and, on the other hand, by the income and family composition of the tenant, be considered a seller or supplier within the meaning of that Directive?

      (1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.


title: Case T-209/11: Action brought on 5 April 2011 — MB System v Commission

text:
               25.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 186/28

         Action brought on 5 April 2011 — MB System v Commission
   (Case T-209/11)
   2011/C 186/53
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: MB System GmbH & Co. KG (Nordhausen, Germany) (represented by: G. Brüggen, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Decision K(2010) 8289 final of 14 December 2010 on State aid No C 38/2005 (ex NN 52/2004) granted by Germany to the Biria Group;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law: wrong assessment of the facts through the classification of the undertaking as an undertaking in difficulty;

               2.

               Second plea in law: failure to apply the 1999 Guidelines for State aid for rescue and restructuring in the classification of the undertaking as an undertaking in difficulty and examination of the value of the ‘binding comfort letter’;

               3.

               Third plea in law: insufficient grounds for diverging from the 1999 Guidelines for State aid for rescue and restructuring in the classification as an undertaking in difficulty and examination of the value of the ‘binding comfort letter’;

               4.

               Fourth plea in law: error of assessment in the calculation of the amount of State aid to be recovered as a result of failure to assess the ‘binding comfort letter’ in the calculation of the amount of State aid to be recovered.


title: Case C-162/06: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 November 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain)) — International Mail Spain SL v Administración del Estado, Correos (Directive 97/67/EC — Common rules for the development of the internal market in postal services — Liberalisation of postal services — Possibility to reserve cross-border post to the universal postal service provider to the extent necessary to ensure the maintenance of universal service )

text:
               12.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 8/4

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 November 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain)) — International Mail Spain SL v Administración del Estado, Correos
   (Case C-162/06) (1)

   (Directive 97/67/EC - Common rules for the development of the internal market in postal services - Liberalisation of postal services - Possibility to reserve cross-border post to the universal postal service provider ‘to the extent necessary to ensure the maintenance of universal service’)
   (2008/C 8/06)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Referring court
   Tribunal Supremo (Spain)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: International Mail Spain SL

      Respondents: Administración del Estado, Correos
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Supremo — Interpretation of Article 7(2) of Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service, prior to its amendment by Directive 2002/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 June 2002 (OJ 1998 L 15, p. 14) — Postal services reserved to universal service providers — Cross-border mail — Assessment criteria — Account taken solely of the effect on the financial equilibrium of the universal service provider
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 7(2) of Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service must be interpreted as allowing Member States to reserve cross-border mail to the universal postal service provider only in so far as they establish

               —

               that, in the absence of such a reservation, achievement of that universal service would be precluded, or

               —

               that that reservation is necessary to enable that service to be carried out under economically acceptable conditions.

      (1)  OJ C 143, 17.6.2006.


title: Case T-315/10: Action brought on 23 July 2010 — Groupe Partouche v Commission

text:
               9.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 274/25

         Action brought on 23 July 2010 — Groupe Partouche v Commission
   (Case T-315/10)
   ()
   2010/C 274/39
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Groupe Partouche SA (Paris, France) (represented by: J.-J. Sebag, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Commission not to object to a concentration;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay all the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the present action, the appolicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 3333 of 21 May 2010 declaring compatible with the common market and with the Agreement on the European Economic Area a proposed concentration by which Française des Jeux and Groupe Lucien Barrière acquire joint control of the undertaking Newco, which is to develop and operate an internet poker site in France.
   In support of its action, the applicant submits that the Commission should have referred examination of the concentration in question back to the French Republic, having regard to its possible significant effect on competition in France in the relevant market.


title: Case C-88/07: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 March 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (Articles 28 EC and 30 EC — Free movement of goods — Directive 2001/83/EC — Products based on medicinal herbs — Products classified as medicinal products — Products lawfully produced or marketed as food supplements or dietary products in other Member States — Meaning of medicinal product — Marketing authorisation — Restriction — Justification — Public health — Consumer protection — Proportionality — Decision No 3052/95/EC — Procedure for the exchange of information on national measures derogating from the principle of the free movement of goods within the Community)

text:
               1.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/3

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 March 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-88/07) (1)

   (Articles 28 EC and 30 EC - Free movement of goods - Directive 2001/83/EC - Products based on medicinal herbs - Products classified as medicinal products - Products lawfully produced or marketed as food supplements or dietary products in other Member States - Meaning of ‘medicinal product’ - Marketing authorisation - Restriction - Justification - Public health - Consumer protection - Proportionality - Decision No 3052/95/EC - Procedure for the exchange of information on national measures derogating from the principle of the free movement of goods within the Community)
   2009/C 102/04
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and A. Alcover San Pedro, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: J. Rodríguez Cárcamo, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Failure to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Arts 28 EC and 30 EC — Infringement of Arts 1 and 4 of Decision No 3052/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 1995 establishing a procedure for the exchange of information on national measures derogating from the principle of the free movement of goods within the Community (OJ 1995 L 321, p. 1)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

                           —

                           declares that, by withdrawing from the market products based on medicinal herbs lawfully produced and/or marketed in another Member State, under an administrative practice consisting in withdrawing from the market any product based on medicinal herbs not included either in the annex to the Ministerial Order on the creation of a special register of medicinal herb-based preparations (Orden Ministerial por la que se establece el registro especial para preparados a base de especies vegetales) of 3 October 1973, as amended, or in the annex to the Order SCO/190/2004 of the Ministry of Health and Consumer Affairs, establishing the list of plants sale of which to the public is prohibited or restricted because of their toxicity (Orden SCO/190/2004 por la que se establece la lista de plantas cuya venta al público queda prohibida o restringida por razón de su toxicidad) of 28 January 2004, other than a preparation the constituents of which are exclusively one or more medicinal herbs or whole parts of such herbs, or crushed or powdered parts of such herbs, on the ground that that product is deemed to be a medicinal product marketed without the requisite marketing authorisation, and

                           —

                           by not communicating that measure to the Commission of the European Communities,

                     the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 28 EC and 30 EC and Articles 1 and 4 of Decision No 3052/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 1995 establishing a procedure for the exchange of information on national measures derogating from the principle of the free movement of goods within the Community.

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 November 2003 in Case C-283/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Shield Mark BV v Joost Kist h.o.d.n. Memex (Trade marks — Approximation of laws — Directive 89/104/EEC — Article 2 — Signs of which a trade mark may consist — Signs capable of being represented graphically — Sound signs — Musical notation — Written description — Onomatopoeia)

text:
C 21/4                   EN                            Official Journal of the European Union                                              24.1.2004
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                              represented by a stave divided into measures and showing, in
                                                                                particular, a clef, musical notes and rests whose form indicates
                          (Sixth Chamber)                                            the relative value and, where necessary, accidentals.
                       of 27 November 2003                                     (1) OJ C 275 of 29.9.2001.
in Case C-283/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Shield Mark BV v Joost
                       Kist h.o.d.n. Memex (1)
(Trade marks — Approximation of laws — Directive 89/
104/EEC — Article 2 — Signs of which a trade mark may                                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
consist — Signs capable of being represented graphically —
Sound signs — Musical notation — Written description —                                                    (Sixth Chamber)
                           Onomatopoeia)
                                                                                of 27 November 2003
                           (2004/C 21/07)
                                                                               in Case C-429/01: Commission of the European Communi-
                     (Language of the case: Dutch)                                                   ties v French Republic (1)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published         (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to
                    in the European Court Reports)                             transpose Directive 90/219/EEC — Genetically modified
                                                                                organisms — Contained use)
In Case C-283/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234                                                 (2004/C 21/08)
EC by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
court between Shield Mark BV and Joost Kist h.o.d.n. Memex,
on the interpretation of Article 2 of First Council Directive 89/
104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40,                                            in the European Court Reports)
p. 1), the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris,
acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber, J. N. Cunha
Rodrigues, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen and F. Macken
(Rapporteur), Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate Gen-                    In Case C-429/01, Commission of the European Communities
eral; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,                (Agent: G. zur Hausen, assisted by M. van der Woude and
has given a judgment on 27 November 2003, in which it has                      V. Landes) with an address for service in Luxembourg, v French
ruled:                                                                         Republic (Agent: initially by G. de Bergues and D. Colas, then
                                                                               by G. de Bergues and C. Isidoro), with an address for service in
                                                                               Luxembourg, APPLICATION for a declaration that, by failing
1.    Article 2 of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 Decem-             to transpose correctly and in full Articles 14(a) and (b), 15(1)
      ber 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States                    and (2), 16(1) and 19(2) to (4) of Council Directive 90/219/
      relating to trade marks is to be interpreted as meaning that             EEC of 23 April 1990 on the contained use of genetically
      sound signs must be capable of being regarded as trade marks             modified micro-organisms (OJ 1990 L 117, p. 1), as amended
      provided that they are capable of distinguishing the goods or            by Commission Directive 94/51/EC of 7 November 1994
      services of one undertaking from those of other undertakings             adapting to technical progress Directive 90/219 (OJ 1994
      and are capable of being represented graphically.                        L 297, p. 29), and by failing to transpose the provisions of
                                                                               that directive in respect of certain contained use by the
2.    Article 2 of Directive 89/104 must be interpreted as meaning             Ministry of Defence, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
      that a trade mark may consist of a sign which is not in itself           obligations under that directive and Article 249 EC, the Court
      capable of being perceived visually, provided that it can be             (Sixth Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris, acting for the
      represented graphically, particularly by means of images, lines          President of the Sixth Chamber, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet,
      or characters, and that its representation is clear, precise, self-      F. Macken and N. Colneric (Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs,
      contained, easily accessible, intelligible, durable and objective.       Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
      In the case of a sound sign, those requirements are not satisfied        on 27 November 2003, in which it:
      when the sign is represented graphically by means of a
      description using the written language, such as an indication            1.    Declares that, by failing to transpose correctly and in full
      that the sign consists of the notes going to make up a musical                 Article 14(a) and (b), first subparagraph, third sentence, and
      work, or the indication that it is the cry of an animal, or by                 Article 19(2) to (4) of Council Directive 90/219/EEC of
      means of a simple onomatopoeia, without more, or by means                      23 April 1990 on the contained use of genetically modified
      of a sequence of musical notes, without more. On the other                     micro-organisms, as amended by Commission Directive 94/
      hand, those requirements are satisfied where the sign is                       51/EC of 7 November 1994 adapting to technical progress


title: Case T-19/15: Judgment of the General Court of 1 February 2017 — Gómez Echevarría v EUIPO — M and M Direct (wax by Yuli’s) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark wax by Yuli’s — Earlier EU word mark MADWAX and earlier national figurative mark wax — Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Extent of the examination carried out by the Board of Appeal — Article 64(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Rights of the defence — Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Abuse of rights — Costs of representation before EUIPO — Article 85(1) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               13.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/21

         Judgment of the General Court of 1 February 2017 — Gómez Echevarría v EUIPO — M and M Direct (wax by Yuli’s)
   (Case T-19/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark wax by Yuli’s - Earlier EU word mark MADWAX and earlier national figurative mark wax - Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Extent of the examination carried out by the Board of Appeal - Article 64(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Rights of the defence - Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Abuse of rights - Costs of representation before EUIPO - Article 85(1) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 078/28)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Yuleidy Caridad Gómez Echevarría (Benalmádena, Spain) (represented by: E. López-Chicheri y Selma, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: M and M Direct Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 November 2014 (Case R 951/2014-1) relating to invalidity proceedings between M and M Direct and Ms Gómez Echevarría.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Ms Yuleidy Caridad Gómez Echevarría to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 89, 16.3.2015.


title: Case C-362/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 28 June 2013 — Maurizio Fiamingo v Rete Ferroviaria Italiana SpA

text:
               7.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/29

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 28 June 2013 — Maurizio Fiamingo v Rete Ferroviaria Italiana SpA
   (Case C-362/13)
   2013/C 260/52
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Corte Suprema di Cassazione

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Maurizio Fiamingo

      Respondent: Rete Ferroviaria Italiana SpA

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are the clauses of the framework agreement on fixed-term work implemented by Directive 1999/70 (1) applicable to maritime labour and, in particular, does clause 2(1) thereof also cover workers engaged for a fixed term on ferries making daily crossings?

               2.

               Does the framework agreement implemented by Directive 1999/70, in particular clause 3(1), preclude national legislation (Article 332 of the Navigation Code) that provides that the ‘duration’ of the contract, rather than its ‘term’, is to be indicated, and is it compatible with that directive to provide for the duration of the contract by indicating a terminating point that is definite as regards the question whether it exists (‘a maximum of 78 days’) but indefinite as regards the question of when it occurs?

               3.

               Does the framework agreement implemented by Directive 1999/70, in particular clause 3(1), preclude national legislation (Articles 325, 326 and 332 of the Navigation Code) in which the objective reasons for a fixed-term contract are expressed simply in terms of the voyage or voyages to be made, in essence equating the purpose of the contract (the service provided) with its cause (the reasons for fixing a term)?

               4.

               Does the framework agreement implemented by the directive preclude national legislation (in the present case the rules of the Navigation Code) that, in the event of the use of successive contracts (in such a way as to be considered abusive for the purposes of clause 5) excludes the transformation of those contracts into contracts of indefinite duration (as provided by Article 326 of the Navigation Code only in situations in which the seaman works continuously for more than a year and in situations in which the period between the ending of one contract and the drawing up of the following contract is no more than 60 days)?

      (1)  Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43).


title: Case T-146/00: Action brought on 30 May 2000 by Stefan Ruf and Martin Stier against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
C 233/32              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      12.8.2000
Action brought on 25 May 2000 by Ms Jutta Hotzel-                       Action brought on 30 May 2000 by Stefan Ruf and Martin
Wagenknecht against the Commission of the European                      Stier against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                         Communities                                                  Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                        (Case T-145/00)                                                         (Case T-146/00)
                        (2000/C 233/59)                                                         (2000/C 233/60)
                  (Language of the case: German)                                          (Language of the case: German)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-               An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the              Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
European Comunities on 25 May 2000, by Ms Jutta Hotzel-                 Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
Wagenknecht, Alfaz del Pi, Alicante, Spain, represented by Mr           30 May 2000 by Stefan Ruf, of Ettingen (Germany), and
Becker of Rechtsanwälte Stöcker, Begrich, Bömkes, Becker und            Martin Stier, of Pfinztal (Germany), represented by Alexander
Steffen, Herne, Germany.                                                Gaul, Rechtsanwalt, of Messrs Spitz, Klinger & Partner,
                                                                        Rechtsanwälte, of Munich (Germany).
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        The applicants claim that the Court should:
—     annul the Commission’s decision of 25 May 1999 and
      the decision on the complaint of 18 February 2000;                —     annul the decision adopted on 28 March 2000 by the
                                                                              First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in
                                                                              the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs);
—     order the Commission to pay the applicant a full widow’s
      pension backdated to 1 June 1999;
                                                                        —     order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
                                                                              (Trade Marks and Designs) to accord the filing date of
—     order the Commision to pay the costs.                                   15 April 1996 to application No 227306 for a Commu-
                                                                              nity trade mark;
                                                                        —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant is the widow of a former official of the ECSC.            Pleas in law and main arguments
She was receiving a widow’s pension in the amount of 35 %
of her late husband’s final basic salary — he died in 1995. The
contested decision reduced the pension to 25 % of final salary.         The trade mark concer-        pictorial mark ‘DAKOTA’ —
The Commission based that decision on Article 81a of the                ned:                          application No 227306
Staff Regulations which was inserted by Article 9 of Council
Regulation No 2799/85 of 27 September 1985 (1).
                                                                        Goods or service concer-      Class 25 goods (articles of clo-
                                                                        ned:                          thing)
The applicant claims that that regulation does not apply to
pensions claims arising prior to 27 September 1985. In                  Decision contested befo-      reinstate the application as pre-
addition the applicant’s original pension claim has become              re the Board of Appeal:       viously constituted
unchallengable.                                                                                Refusal by the examiner to
                                                                        Grounds of claim:
                                                                                — incorrect
                                                                                cles 78 andapplication
                                                                                27 of Regulation
                                                                                of Arti-
                                                                                (EC) No 40/94
(1) Council Regulation (ECSC, EEC, Euratom) No 2799/85 of                                             — infringement by the Office of
    27 September 1985 amending the Staff Regulations of officials                                         its obligation to provide an
    and the conditions of employment of other servants of the                                             explanation
    European Communities (OJ 1985 L 265, p. 1).


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 8 May 2001 in Case T-95/01 R: Gérard Coget and Others v Court of Auditors of the European Communities (Applications for interim measures — Officials — Internal competition — Admissibility)

text:
C 259/12                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      15.9.2001
D. López Garido, lawyer, with an address for service in                   ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
Luxembourg against the Council of the European Union                                                    INSTANCE
(Agents: F. Anton and G. Ramos Ruano) and the European
Parliament (Agents: M. Gómez Leal and F. de Wachter) —                                              of 8 May 2001
application for annulment of the guide for candidates and the
notice of competition aimed at drawing up reserve lists for
Spanish-language adminstrators and Spanish-language assist-                in Case T-95/01 R: Gérard Coget and Others v Court of
ant administrators (EUR/A/159/2000 and PE/90/A — the                                  Auditors of the European Communities
Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of
A.W.H. Meij (President), A. Potocki and J. Pirrung, Judges;                (Applications for interim measures — Officials — Internal
H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 2 May 2001, the operative                              competition — Admissibility)
part of which is as follows:
                                                                                (2001/C 259/21)
1.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible;
2.    The parties shall bear their own costs, including costs relating                        (Language of the case: French)
      to proceedings on the application for interim measures.
                                                                           In Case T-95/01 R: Gérard Coget, an official of the Court of
                                                                           Auditors of the European Communities, Hettange-Grande,
(1) OJ C 316 of 4.11.00.                                                   France, Pierre Hugé, an official of the Court of Auditors of the
                                                                           European Communities, residing in Bonnevoie, Grand Duchy
                                                                           of Luxembourg, and Emmanuel Gabolde, an official of the
                                                                           Court of Auditors of the European Communities, residing in
                                                                           Metz, France, represented by André Soulier, lawyer, against
                                                                           Court of Auditors of the European Communities — application
                                                                           for suspension of operation of the decision of the Court of
                                                                           Auditors of 22 February 2001 filling, with effect from 1 July
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                               2001, the post of Secretary General — the President of the
                              INSTANCE                                     Court of First Instance made an order on 8 May 2001, the
                                                                           operative part of which is as follows:
                          of 21 May 2001
                                                                           1.   The application for interim measures is dismissed as inadmis-
                                                                                sible.
in Case T-52/01 R: Jürgen Schaefer v the Commission of
                  the European Communities                                 2.   The costs are reserved.
(Applications for interim measures — Officials — Reassign-
    ment — Admissibility — Prima facie case — Urgency)
                          (2001/C 259/20)
                                                                           Action brought on 12 June 2001 by Jörg Riedemann,
                                                                           Rechtsanwalt, as liquidator of ZEMAG GmbH, against the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                                (Case T-133/01)
In Case T-52/01 R: Jürgen Schaefer, an official of the Com-
mission of the European Communities, represented by
                                                                                (2001/C 259/22)
J. R. Iturriagagoitia, lawyer, against Commission of the Euro-
pean Communities (Agents: J. Currall and E. Gippini-Fournier)
— application for first, suspension of operation of the decision
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
of the Commission of 12 February 2001 transferring the
applicant to Brussels and, secondly, suspension of any pro-
cedure initiated with a view to filling the vacancy arising from           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
the order transferring the applicant — the President of the                ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Court of First Instance made an order on 21 May 2001, the                  European Communities on 12 June 2001 by Jörg Riedemann,
operative part of which is as follows:                                     Rechtsanwalt, as liquidator of ZEMAG GmbH, Zeitz, Germany,
                                                                           represented by Ulrich Vahlhaus, Rechtsanwalt.
1.    The application for interim measures is dismissed.
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should annul Commission
2.    The costs are reserved.
                                                                           decision K(2201)1028 of 28 March 2001 on state aid granted
                                                                           by Germany to EFBE Verwaltungs GmbH & Co Management
                                                                           KG (now Lintra Beteiligungs Holdings GmbH, together with


title: Case T-80/08: Action brought on 19 February 2008 — CureVac v OHIM — Qiagen (RNAiFect)

text:
               26.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/34

         Action brought on 19 February 2008 — CureVac v OHIM — Qiagen (RNAiFect)
   (Case T-80/08)
   (2008/C 107/57)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant: CureVac GmbH (Tübingen, Germany) (represented by: F. von Stosch, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Qiagen GmbH (Hilden, Germany)
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 11 December 2007 in Case R 1219/2006-1 relating to Opposition No B 771 495;

               —

               Refuse registration of Community trade mark No 3 304 813

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Qiagen GmbH

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘RNAiFect’ for goods in Classes 1, 5 and 9 (Application No 3 304 813)

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the word mark ‘RNActive’ for goods in Classes 1 and 5 (Community trade mark No 2 953 768), albeit that the opposition was brought against registration in respect of certain goods in Classes 1 and 5

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) as there is a likelihood of confusion between the opposing marks due to the identity of the goods and the similarity of the marks.

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


title: Case T-389/11: Action brought on 18 July 2011 — Guccio Gucci v OHIM Chang Qing Qing (GUDDY)

text:
               24.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/34

         Action brought on 18 July 2011 — Guccio Gucci v OHIM Chang Qing Qing (GUDDY)
   (Case T-389/11)
   2011/C 282/67
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Guccio Gucci SpA (Firenze, Italy) (represented by: F. Jacobacci, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Chang Qing Qing (Firenze, Italy)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 April 2011 in case R 143/2010-1 insofar as it rejected the opposition for the remainder of goods in classes 9 and 14; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘GUDDY’, for various goods in classes 9, 14, 18 and 25 — Community trade mark application No 6799531

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 121988 of the word mark ‘GUCCI’, for goods in classes 9, 14, 18 and 25

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partially annulled the decision of the Opposition Division and partially dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal failed (i) to examine accurately the documents submitted to reach the appropriate conclusion regarding the higher distinctiveness of the trademark ‘GUCCI’ and as regards the phonetic comparison between the trademarks and subsequently erred in (ii) interpreting and applying Article 8(1)(b) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation.


title: Case C-89/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 21 February 2014  — A2A SpA v Agenzia delle Entrate

text:
               12.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/20

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 21 February 2014 — A2A SpA v Agenzia delle Entrate
   (Case C-89/14)
   2014/C 142/28
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Corte Suprema di Cassazione

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: A2A SpA

      Defendant: Agenzia delle Entrate

      Question referred

   Must Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (1) and Articles 9, 11 and 13 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 (2) of 21 April 2004 implementing Regulation No 659/1999 be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, in relation to the recovery of State aid pursuant to a Commission decision notified on 7 June 2002, provides that the interest is to be determined on the basis of Chapter V of Regulation No 794/2004 (that is to say, on the basis of Articles 9 and 11 thereof, in particular) and, in consequence, that an interest rate based on the system of compound interest is to be applied?

      (1)  OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1.

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 2004 L 140, p. 1).


title: Case C-423/05: Action brought on  29 November 2005  by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
               25.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/14

         Action brought on 29 November 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic
   (Case C-423/05)
   (2006/C 48/27)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the French Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 29 November 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by A. Caerios and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that by failing to take all necessary measures:

                           —

                           to ensure that waste is recovered or disposed of without endangering human health or the environment and to prohibit the abandonment, dumping or uncontrolled disposal of waste;

                           —

                           to ensure that any holder of waste has it handled by a private or public waste collector or by an undertaking which carries out disposal or recovery operations, or recovers or disposes of it himself, in accordance with Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste; (1)

                           —

                           to ensure that establishments and undertakings which carry out disposal operate with a permit issued by the competent authorities;

                           —

                           to ensure in relation to landfill sites which had been granted a permit or were already in operation when Council Directive 99/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste (2) was to be transposed into national law, namely on 16 July 2001, that landfill operators prepared and presented to the competent authorities, for their approval, prior to 16 July 2002 a conditioning plan for the site, including particulars relating to the conditions of the permit and any corrective measures the operator considered would be needed, and that, following the presentation of conditioning plans, the competent authorities take a definite decision on whether operations may continue, taking all necessary measures to close down as soon as possible sites which have not been granted a permit to continue to operate or authorising the necessary work and laying down a transitional period for the completion of the plan,

                     the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4, 8 and 9 of Directive 75/442/EEC, as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC, (3) and Article 14(a), (b) and (c) of Directive 99/31/EC.

               2.

               order the French Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Commission considers that, by permitting a very large number of unlawful and unsupervised landfill sites to operate in France, and by failing to take all necessary measures to ensure that waste is disposed of without endangering human health and harming the environment, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4, 8 and 9 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC on waste, as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC. The French authorities do not dispute that they have breached these obligations; they do dispute, however, the number of unlawful landfill sites indicated by the Commission and claim that their impact on the environment is slight since the unauthorised landfill sites take only green waste, rubble and bulky waste.
   The French authorities did not provide adequate information for it to be possible to assess whether its permit system complies with the requirements of Article 9 of Directive 75/442/EEC: no permit is required for tips covering an area of less than 100 m2 with a height of less than 2m or for the recovery of waste on such tips. The French authorities' interpretation that only landfill sites operated by municipal authorities without a permit are unlawful sites is incorrect since an individual may also operate a landfill site without a permit.
   On the basis of the information provided to it, the Commission can only assume that, contrary to the requirements under Article 14 of Directive 99/31/EC, establishments and undertakings carrying out waste disposal operations without being subject to a permit did not, prior to 16 July 2002, prepare or present to the competent authorities, for their approval, a conditioning plan for each unlawful or unsupervised landfill site. Any landfill site that cannot be adapted to the requirements of that directive must be closed down immediately. Operating an unlawful landfill without a conditioning plan and without a permit constitutes an infringement of Article 14 of Directive 99/31/EC.

      (1)  OJ L 194, of 25.07.1975, p. 39.

      (2)  OJ L 182, of 16.07.1999, p. 1.

      (3)  OJ L 78, of 26.03.1991, p. 32.


title: Case C-3/06 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 February 2007 — Groupe Danone v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Fines — Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Leniency notice)

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/6

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 February 2007 — Groupe Danone v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-3/06 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Fines - Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Leniency notice)
   (2007/C 82/11)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Groupe Danone (represented by: A. Winckler and S. Sorinas Jimeno, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Bouquet and W. Wils, Agents)
   Re:
   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 25 October 2005 in Case T-38/02 Groupe Danone v Commission, whereby the Court of First Instance dismissed in part the action for annulment of Commission Decision 2003/569/EC of 5 December 2001 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 EC (OJ 2003 L 200, p. 1).
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Groupe Danone to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 48 of 25.2.2006.