title: Case T-145/16: Action brought on 4 April 2016 — Corsini Santolaria v EUIPO — Molins Tura (biombo 13)

text:
               20.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 222/22

         Action brought on 4 April 2016 — Corsini Santolaria v EUIPO — Molins Tura (biombo 13)
   (Case T-145/16)
   (2016/C 222/28)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Laura Corsini Santolaria (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: P. Merino Baylos, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Maria Molins Tura (Barcelona, Spain)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘biombo 13’ — Application for registration No 12 271 383

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 January 2016 in Case R 744/2015-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision in its entirety as regards Classes 25, 35 and 42 in respect of which registration is sought;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-205/07: Judgment of the General Court of 3 February 2011 — Italy v Commission (Rules on the use of languages — Publication on EPSO’s website of a Call for expressions of interest to constitute a database of candidates to be recruited as contractual agents — Publication in three official languages — Articles 12 EC and 290 EC — Article 82 of the Conditions of Employment of other Servants — Regulation No 1)

text:
               19.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/14

         Judgment of the General Court of 3 February 2011 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-205/07) (1)

   (Rules on the use of languages - Publication on EPSO’s website of a Call for expressions of interest to constitute a database of candidates to be recruited as contractual agents - Publication in three official languages - Articles 12 EC and 290 EC - Article 82 of the Conditions of Employment of other Servants - Regulation No 1)
   2011/C 89/32
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: B. Tidore, acting as Agent, and P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and H. Krämer, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Call for expressions of interest EPSO/CAST/EU/27/07 to constitute a database of candidates to be recruited as contractual agents carrying out various activities within the European institutions and agencies, published on the website of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) on 27 March 2007.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Call for expressions of interest EPSO/CAST/EU/27/07 to constitute a database of candidates to be recruited as contractual agents carrying out various activities within the European institutions and agencies, published on the website of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) on 27 March 2007;

               2.

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

      (1)  OJ C 170, 21.7.2007.


title: Case F-2/11: Action brought on 7 January 2011 — Descamps v Commission

text:
               5.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/36

         Action brought on 7 January 2011 — Descamps v Commission
   (Case F-2/11)
   2011/C 72/60
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Eric Descamps (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision to dismiss the applicant at the end of the probationary period and compensation for the loss suffered as a result of that decision.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision adopted on 1 March 2010 by the Director of Directorate HR.B-HR Core Processes 1: Career, Directorate-General Human Resources and Security of the European Commission, in its capacity as appointing authority, to dismiss the applicant with effect from 31 March 2010;

               —

               Annul, in so far as necessary, the decision of 24 September 2010 dismissing the complaint;

               —

               Consequently, reinstate the applicant in his functions as a titular official with effect from 1 April 2010 and award him the amount of remuneration which he should have received as a titular official since that date, including all ancillary rights (such as pension rights), which he assesses, provisionally and ex aequo et bono, at EUR 39 600;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay damages, assessed provisionally and ex aequo et bono at EUR 10 000, for non-material damage;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay interest for delay on the capital thus due;

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay the costs.


               8.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/18

         Action brought on 21 February 2008 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Republic of Iceland
   (Case E-2/08)
   (2008/C 113/15)
   An action against the Republic of Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 21 February 2008 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Niels Fenger and Florence Simonetti, acting as agents.
   The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to declare that:

               1.

               by failing to adopt, or to notify the Authority of, the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 1a of Chapter XXIV of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2004/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 amending Directive 97/68/EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to measures against the emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants from internal combustion engines to be installed in non-road mobile machinery), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, within the time prescribed, the Republic of Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 of that Act and Article 7 EEA; and

               2.

               the Republic of Iceland be ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings.

         Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

               —

               The present case concerns the non-implementation of an environmental protection directive.

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority pleads that the Government of Iceland has not provided any indication that it has implemented the directive into Icelandic law.

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority pleads that the Government of Iceland has not disputed that it has not implemented the directive.


title: Case T-107/16: Action brought on 18 March 2016 — Airhole Facemasks v EUIPO — sindustrysurf (AIRHOLE FACE MASKS YOU IDIOT)

text:
               17.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/18

         Action brought on 18 March 2016 — Airhole Facemasks v EUIPO — sindustrysurf (AIRHOLE FACE MASKS YOU IDIOT)
   (Case T-107/16)
   (2016/C 175/22)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Airhole Facemasks, Inc. (Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada) (represented by: A. Michaels, Barrister and S. Barker, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: sindustrysurf, SL (Trapagaran, Spain)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark in black and white containing the word elements ‘AIRHOLE FACE MASKS YOU IDIOT’ — EU trade mark No 9 215 427

      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18/01/2016 in Case R 2547/2014-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               reverse the contested decision, and declare the EUTM invalid in its entirety, or alternatively annul the contested decision;

               —

               order sindustrysurf, SL to pay the applicant’s costs of this appeal and of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal and to pay the costs ordered to be paid by the Cancellation Division.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(3) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 52(1)(b)of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 53(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-133/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 8 April 2009 — Dr. József Uzonyi. v Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal Központi Szerve

text:
               4.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 153/21

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 8 April 2009 — Dr. József Uzonyi. v Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal Központi Szerve
   (Case C-133/09)
   2009/C 153/40
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Fővárosi Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Dr. József Uzonyi

      Defendant: Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal Központi Szerve

      Question referred

   Does it follow from the provision contained in Article 143ba(1) of Regulation (EC) 1782/2003 (1) in the version in force until 31 December 2006, under which ‘[payment] shall be granted on the basis of objective and non-discriminatory criteria’, that, as regards eligibility for the separate sugar payment in connection with the single area payment, it was not possible to draw a distinction between farmers on the basis of whether they supplied the sugar beet for processing directly (themselves) or indirectly (via intermediaries)?

      (1)  Corrigendum to Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) No 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001; OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, Special Edition in Hungarian, Chapter 3, Volume 40, p. 269-377.


title: Case T-195/09: Order of the General Court of 19 September 2011 — Matkompaniet v OHIM — DF World of Spices (KATOZ) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               19.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 340/20

         Order of the General Court of 19 September 2011 — Matkompaniet v OHIM — DF World of Spices (KATOZ)
   (Case T-195/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate)
   2011/C 340/42
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Matkompaniet AB (Borås, Sweden) (represented by: J. Gulliksson and J. Olson, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: DF World of Spices GmbH (Dissen, Germany) (represented by: A. Ebert-Weidenfeller and S. Schmüser, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 March 2009 (Case R 577/2008-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Matkompaniet AB and DF World of Spices GmbH

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no further need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

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

      (1)  OJ C 180, 1.8.2009.


title: Case F-119/05: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 16 January 2007 — Gesner v OHIM (Officials — Invalidity — Refusal of request for the establishment of an Invalidity Committee)

text:
               24.2.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/47

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 16 January 2007 — Gesner v OHIM
   (Case F-119/05) (1)

   (Officials - Invalidity - Refusal of request for the establishment of an Invalidity Committee)
   (2007/C 42/81)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Charlotte Gesner (Birkerod, Denmark) (represented by: J. Vázquez Vázquez and C. Amo Quiñones, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (represented by: I. de Medrano Caballero, Agent)
   Re:
   Staff case — Annulment of the decision of OHIM of 2 September 2005 refusing the applicant's request for the establishment of an Invalidity Committee to evaluate her inability to perform the duties corresponding to a post in her function group, and her right to claim invalidity allowance
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of 21 April 2005 by which the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) refused Ms Gesner's request for the establishment of an Invalidity Committee;

               2.

               Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 96, 22.4.2006, p. 34.


title: Case C-105/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland) lodged on 25 February 2010 — Public prosecutor v Malik Gataev, Khadizhat Gataeva

text:
               17.4.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 100/32

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland) lodged on 25 February 2010 — Public prosecutor v Malik Gataev, Khadizhat Gataeva
   (Case C-105/10)
   2010/C 100/48
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Referring court

   Korkein oikeus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Public prosecutor

      Respondents: Malik Gataev, Khadizhat Gataeva

      Questions referred

               1.

               How is the relationship between the provisions of Council Directive 2005/85/EC (1) (the Asylum Procedures Directive) and the provisions of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA (2) to be interpreted when a person whose surrender is requested under a European arrest warrant, who is a national of a third country, has applied for asylum in the executing Member State and the application for asylum is in progress at the same time as the case concerning the execution of the arrest warrant?

                           a)

                           Is precedence to be given to the right to remain in the Member State pending the examination of the application under Article 7(1) of the directive, or is Article 7(2) of the directive to be interpreted in such a way that execution of the arrest warrant constitutes grounds which displace the right under Article 7(1)? Can a surrender in accordance with the Framework Decision be refused being of a pending asylum application, even though Articles 3 and 4 of the Framework Decision do not include this as grounds for refusal?

                           b)

                           Is Article 7(2) of the directive to be interpreted in such a way that it gives Member States a discretion to settle the question referred to in (a) above in national law in the manner desired by them?

                           c)

                           In particular, how is Article 7 of the directive to be interpreted regarding the above questions when a person whose surrender is requested under an arrest warrant has applied for asylum essentially on the same grounds as those on which he or she opposes the surrender?

                           d)

                           If asylum is granted, does it therefore follow that the executing Member State must refuse surrender? In the event of this situation, reference is also made to the fourth question referred for a preliminary ruling (points a — c).

               2.

               Is the Framework Decision, taking into account firstly the principle stated in Article 1(2) of that decision and secondly the provisions of Article 6(1) of the Treaty on European Union and the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to be interpreted in such a way that, taking into account recitals 12 and 13 of the Framework Decision, in addition to the grounds for refusal set out in Articles 3 and 4 of the Framework Decision, surrender can be refused also on other grounds based on the factors set out in the recitals?

                           a)

                           If the Framework Decision is to be interpreted in this way, on what grounds may or on what grounds must the executing Member State then rely? Can a Member State in this case rely on the principles of interpretation in relation to the European Convention on Human Rights adopted in the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights regarding extradition on the basis of an offence? Can a Member State also rely on grounds that broaden the grounds for refusal in comparison to the principles of interpretation adopted in the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights?

                           b)

                           If the Framework Decision is to be interpreted in such a way that execution of the arrest warrant can also be refused on grounds other than those set out in Articles 3 and 4, does it furthermore follow from this that the Framework Decision also permits a Member State to refuse to execute an arrest warrant that was issued for the purposes of execution of a sentence, on the basis of factors relating to the content or grounds of the judgment delivered in the State which issued the arrest warrant or the appropriateness of the court proceedings which resulted in the judgment, and requiring an investigation of these claims in the Member State which was asked to execute the arrest warrant? On what more precise conditions or grounds can such an investigation (“revision au fond”) become pertinent?

                           c)

                           Is the Framework Decision to be interpreted in such a way that, inter alia, it permits a Member State to refuse surrender on the basis of an arrest warrant issued for the purposes of execution of a sentence if there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the trial in which the sentence was passed was not fair because the person convicted was subjected to persecution by the authorities of the country of the sentencing court, in the form of discriminatory prosecution?

               3.

               Can the provisions of the Framework Decision be interpreted in such a way that surrender can be refused altogether in a situation in which the surrender may be temporarily postponed for serious humanitarian reasons, for example reasons of health, in accordance with Article 23(4) of the Framework Decision, if in such a case the unreasonableness of the surrender cannot be eliminated by a stay of execution?

               4.

               If the Framework Decision is to be interpreted in such a way that execution of the arrest warrant can be refused on grounds regarding which there are no explicit provisions in the Framework Decision, what conditions for such refusal must be imposed, particularly when the arrest warrant was issued for the purposes of execution of a sentence?

                           a)

                           Are the provisions of Article 4(6) of the Framework Decision to be observed correspondingly in that case? In other words, is refusal to execute an arrest warrant conditional on the person whose surrender is requested being a national or a permanent resident of the executing Member State and on that State undertaking itself to execute the sentence or measure in accordance with national legislation?

                           b)

                           Is refusal conditional at least on the State from which surrender is requested undertaking itself to execute the sentence or measure in accordance with its domestic law?

                           c)

                           If the Framework Decision is to be interpreted in such a way that in some cases it permits refusal to execute an arrest warrant issued for the purposes of execution of a sentence on grounds relating to the content or the grounds of the judgment delivered in the State that issued the arrest warrant or the appropriateness of the court proceedings which resulted in the judgment, is refusal then permitted without the conditions in (a) or (b) above?

               5.

               Regarding execution of the arrest warrant, what significance must or may be afforded to the fact that a person apprehended, who is a citizen of a third country, opposes the surrender by claiming that he or she is threatened with deportation to a third country in the country which issued the arrest warrant?

                           a)

                           What significance do grounds for opposition of this type have, taking into account the provisions of the Framework Decision and the obligations which a Member State issuing an arrest warrant has with respect to nationals of third countries by virtue of Union law, inter alia on the basis of Council Directives 2004/83/EC (3) and 2005/85/EC?

                           b)

                           In this context, can Article 28(4) of the Framework Decision, according to which a person who has been surrendered pursuant to a European arrest warrant must not be extradited to a third State without the consent of the competent authority of the Member State which surrendered the person, be significant? In addition to surrender on the basis of an offence, can the ban referred to also concern other kinds of removal from a country, such as deportation, and on what conditions?

               6.

               Is the obligation of a national court to interpret national law in conformity with the Framework Decision, as set out in paragraphs 34 and 42 to 44 of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities in Case C-105/03 Pupino, valid irrespective of whether the interpretation required by the Framework Decision turns out to be to the advantage or to the disadvantage of an individual party, when the situations set out in paragraphs 44 to 45 of that judgment are not involved?

      (1)  Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status (OJ 2005 L 326, p. 13).

      (2)  Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States. (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1)

      (3)  Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted (OJ 2004 L 304, p. 12).


title: Case C-409/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Debreceni Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 28 August 2014  — Schenker Nemzetközi Szállítmányozási és Logisztikai Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Észak-alföldi Regionális Vám- és Pénzügyőri Főigazgatósága

text:
               8.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 439/16

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Debreceni Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 28 August 2014 — Schenker Nemzetközi Szállítmányozási és Logisztikai Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Észak-alföldi Regionális Vám- és Pénzügyőri Főigazgatósága
   (Case C-409/14)
   (2014/C 439/24)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Debreceni Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Schenker Nemzetközi Szállítmányozási és Logisztikai Kft.

      Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Észak-alföldi Regionális Vám- és Pénzügyőri Főigazgatósága

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must the description of customs goods as ‘Light air-cured tobacco’ in accordance with heading CN 2401 10 35 of Chapter 24 ‘TOBACCO AND MANUFACTURED TOBACCO SUBSTITUTES’ in Commission Regulation (EU) No 861/2010 (1) of 5 October 2010 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff be interpreted as meaning that it includes only air cured tobacco, not stemmed/stripped:

                           —

                           which contains the whole leaves of the tobacco plant,

                           —

                           which is not cut, pressed or compacted,

                           —

                           which is not permitted, as light air cured tobacco not stemmed/stripped under heading CN 2401 10 35, to undergo any other form of processing (for example, removal of stems, cutting or compacting of leaves) apart from processing consisting in air curing,

                           —

                           which is not for smoking?

               2.

               Must the concept of ‘suspensive customs procedure’ in Article 4(6) of Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC be interpreted as meaning that it also covers the case of customs goods (excise goods) in external transit, in temporary storage or in customs storage under accompanying documents in which the tariff heading is incorrectly stated (CN 2401 10 35 instead of CN 2403 10 9000), but the relevant chapter (Chapter 24 — tobacco) and all the other data in those documents (container number, quantity, net weight) are correct and the seals are not broken?
               (In other words, it must be determined whether particular products can be under a suspensive customs procedure when the Chapter of the Common Customs Code is indicated correctly in its accompanying documents but the specific tariff heading is incorrect?)

               3.

               Must the concept of ‘importation’ in Article 2(b) of Council Directive 2008/118/EC (2) of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC and the concept of ‘importation of excise goods’ in Article 4(8) of that directive as meaning that they also cover the case where the tariff heading of the actual goods in external transit and the tariff heading stated in the accompanying documents is different, while, apart from that disparity, both the indication of the Chapter (in the present case, Chapter 24 — tobacco) and the quantity and net weight of the actual goods correspond to the data given in the accompanying documents?

               4.

               Do the irregularities referred to in Article 38 of Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC include a situation where goods are under a suspensive customs arrangement and there is an incorrect CN code under Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Regulation (EU) No 861/2010, in the accompanying documents?

      (1)  OJ L 284, 29.10.2010, p. 1.

      (2)  Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC (OJ L 9, 14.1.2009, p. 12).


title: Action brought on 14 May 1996 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic (Case C-168/96)

text:
No C 210/6              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       20 . 7 . 96
Action brought on 14 May 1996 by the Commission of the                 The applicant claims that the Court should :
 European Communities against the Portuguese Republic
                         ( Case C-166/96 )                             — declare that, by failing to adopt in their entirety the laws,
                                                                             regulations or administrative provisions necessary to
                           ( 96/C 210/ 11 )
                                                                             comply with Commission Directive 92/69/EEC of
                                                                             31 July 1992 adapting to technical progress for the 17th
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought                        time Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                   laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating
14 May 1996 by the Commission of the European                                to the classification, packaging and labelling of
Communities, represented by Francisco de Sousa Fialho,                       dangerous substances ^), the Portuguese Republic has
acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg                   failed to fulfil its obligations under the third paragraph
at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service,              of Article 189 of the EC Treaty and Article 3 of Directive
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                                    92/69/EEC,
                                                                       — declare , in the alternative, that by failing to inform
The applicant claims that the Court should :                                 the Commission immediately thereof, the Portuguese
                                                                             Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
— declare that, by failing to adopt in their entirety the laws,              same provisions,
     regulations or administrative provisions necessary to
     comply with Commission Directive 92/32/EEC of                     — order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs .
     30 April 1992 amending for the seventh time Directive
     67/548/EEC on the approximation of laws, regulations
     and administrative provisions relating to the                     Pleas in law and main arguments
     classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous
     substances ( ] ), the Portuguese Republic has failed to           The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
     fulfil its obligations under the third paragraph of               in Case C-l 65/96 ( 2 ). The time limit for transposing the
     Article 189 of the EC Treaty and Article 3 of Directive           Directive expired on 31 October 1993 .
     92/32/EEC ,
                                                                       (>) OJ No L 383 , 29 . 12 . 1992 , p . 13 .
— declare, in the alternative, that by failing to inform               ( 2 ) See page 5 of this Official Journal .
     the Commission immediately thereof, the Portuguese
     Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
     same provisions,
— order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs .
                                                                       Action brought on 14 May 1996 by the Commission of the
                                                                         European Communities against the Portuguese Republic
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                ( Case C-168/96 )
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those                                          ( 96/C 210/ 13 )
in Case C-l 65/96 ( 2 ). The time limit for transposing the
Directive expired on 31 October 1993 .                                 An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
                                                                       before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
(') OJ No L 154 , 5 . 6 . 1992 , p . 1 .                               on 14 May 1996 by the Commission of the European
(2 ) See page 5 of this Official Journal .                             Communities, represented by Francisco de Sousa Fialho,
                                                                       acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                                                                       at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service,
                                                                       Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should :
Action brought on 14 May 1996 by the Commission of the                 — declare that, by failing to adopt in their entirety the laws,
 European Communities against the Portuguese Republic                        regulations or administrative provisions necessary to
                         ( Case C-167/96 )                                   comply with Commission Directive 93/67/EEC of
                           ( 96/C 210/12 )                                   20 July 1993 laying down the principles for assessment
                                                                             of risks to man and the environment of substances
                                                                             notified in accordance with Council Directive
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought                        67/548/EEC ( ] ), the Portuguese Republic has failed to
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                   fulfil its obligations under the third paragraph of
14 May 1996 by the Commission of the European                                Article 189 of the EC Treaty and Article 8 of Directive
Communities, represented by Francisco de Sousa Fialho,                       93 /67/EEC ,
acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg
at the office of Carlos Gômez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service,        — declare, in the alternative, that by failing to inform
Wagner Centre , Kirchberg.                                                   the Commission immediately thereof, the Portuguese
 ---pagebreak---   20 . 7 . 96            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 210/7
        Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the          Action brought on 15 May 1996 by the Commission of the
        same provisions,                                                 European Communities against the Council of the
                                                                                European Union
 — order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs .                                              ( Case C-1 70/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 210/ 15 )
  Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         An action against the Council of the European Union was
 The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those              brought before the Court of Justice of the European
 in Case C-165/96 ( 2 ). The time limit for transposing the              Communities on 15 May 1 996 by the Commission of the
 Directive expired on 31 October 1993 ,                                  European Communities, represented by Pieter Van Nuffel ,
                                                                         acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg
 (') OJ No L 22 7, 8 . 9 . 1993 , p . 9 .                                at the office of C. Gomez de la Cruz, of the Legal Service of
 (2 ) See page 5 of this Official Journal.                               the Commission of the European Communities, Wagner
                                                                         Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                        — annul the Act of the Council of 4 March 1996 entitled
                                                                             'Joint action on airport transit arrangements ' ('),
 Action brought on 15 May 1996 by the Commission of the
   European Communities against the Portuguese Republic                 — order the Council to pay the costs .
                          ( Case C- 1 69/96 )
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
                            ( 96/C 210/14
                                                                        — Infringement of the EC Treaty :
 An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
 before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                  The matters governed by the contested Act fall within
 15 May 1996 by the Commission of the European                               the competence of the European Community and not
 Communities, represented by Francisco de Sousa Fialho,                      within the area of cooperation in the fields of justice and
 acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg                  home affairs ( CJHA ). Where the EC Treaty confers
 at the office of Carlos Gômez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service ,            powers on the institutions , they may only exercise them
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                                    in accordance with that Treaty; they may not legally
                                                                             exercise them within any other framework , even a
                                                                             framework established by the Treaty on European
The applicant claims that the Court should :                                 Union .
— declare that, by failing to adopt in their entirety the laws,              As regards Articles 3 and 4 and the Annex to the
       regulations or administrative provisions necessary to                 contested Act, the Commission considers that the
      comply with Commission Directive 93/ 105/EC of                         underlying interpretation, to the effect that travellers
       25 November 1993 laying down Annex VII D ,                            ( ordinarily ) remaining within the international areas of
      containing information required for the technical                      airports do not cross an external frontier of a Member
       dossier referred to in Article         12 of the seventh              State, is erroneous; the criterion employed by
      amendment of Council Directive 67/548/EEC ('), the                     Article 100c of the EC Treaty is not the crossing of a
      Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations               checkpoint. It is clear from a systematic interpretation of
      under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC                     the relevant provisions that airport transit visas form an
      Treaty and Article 2 of Directive 93/105/EEC,                          integral part of the provisions relating to visa policy as a
                                                                             whole ; that policy falls, in principle , within the sphere of
— declare , in the alternative , that by failing to inform the               CJHA, save in two respects, one of which is the
      Commission immediately thereof, the Portuguese                         determination of the list of third countries concerned .
      Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
      same provisions,                                                       As regards Article 2(1 ) and ( 2 ) of the contested Act, the
                                                                             Commission considers that, having regard to their real
— order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs .                           meaning, those provisions — which , read in isolation ,
                                                                             fall within the area of CJHA — are covered by the
                                                                             Community's power to adopt provisions which are
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              ancillary to matters falling within the competence of the
                                                                             Community.
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
in Case C-165/96 ( 2 ). The time limit for transposing the                   As regards Article 2 ( 3 ), this simply repeats, within the
Directive expired on 31 December 1993 .                                      framework of CJHA, an obligation which already arises
                                                                             from Council Regulation ( EC ) No 1683/95 ( 2 ).
(') OJ No L 294, 30 . 11 . 1993 , p . 21 .
( 2 ) See page 5 of this Official Journal .                             — Breach of essential procedural requirements :
                                                                             The choice of Article K. 3 of the Treaty on European
                                                                             Union as the legal basis for the Act of 4 March 199 6 ,


title: Appeal brought on 22 July 1996 by the European Parliament against the judgment delivered on 22 May 1996 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-140/94 between Enrique Gutiérrez de Quijano y Llorens and the European Parliament (Case C-252/96 P)

text:
No C 269/ 18              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        14 . 9 . 96
2 . For the purposes of Article 119 does 'discrimination                 — uphold the contentions put forward by the European
       based on sex ' include discrimination based on the                    Parliament at first instance, namely that the Court
       employee 's sexual orientation ?                                      should :
3 . For the purpose of Article 119 , does ' discrimination                  — dismiss the application,
       based on sex' include discrimination based on the sex of
       that employee 's partner ?                                           — make an appropriate order as to costs ,
4 . If the answer to question 1 is yes, does an employee, to                     and
       whom such concessions are refused, enjoy a directly
       enforceable community right against his employer ?
                                                                         — as regards the proceedings before the Court of Justice,
                                                                             also make an appropriate order as to costs .
5 . Is such a refusal contrary to the provisions of Council
       Directive 76/207/EEC ( 2 )?
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
6 . Is it open to an employer to justify such refusal if he can
       show ( a ) that the purpose of the concessions in question        — Inadmissibility of the ground of annulment of the Court
       is to confer benefits on married partners or partners in              of First Instance : the ground of annulment based on the
       an equivalent position to married partners and ( b ) that             formal difference between Competitions No PE/LA/91
       relationships between same-sex cohabiting partners                    and No PE/161 /LA was never relied on by the applicant
       have not traditionally been, and are not generally,                   at first instance . It would at least be illogical to prohibit
       regarded by society as equivalent to marriage, rather                 the applicant from putting forward new grounds during
       than on the basis of an economic or organizational                    the proceedings while allowing the Court of First
       reason relating to the employment in question ?                       Instance to do so of its own motion .
(') Council Directive 75/ 117/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the
      approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the     — Absence of an act adversely affecting the official and lack
      application of the principle of equal pay for men and women            of legal interest in bringing the action : the official
      ( OJ No L 45 , 19 . 2 . 1975 , p. 19 ).                                submitted his candidature only for Competition No
( 2 ) Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the                 PE/LA/91 . It would be no less than surprising if a notice
      implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and         of competition for which the potential candiate did not
      women as regards access to employment, vocational training             in fact apply were to be considered to be an act adversely
      and promotion , and working conditions ( Of No L 39 , 14 . 2 .         affecting him . It is hard to understand how, in the
      1976 , p. 40 ).                                                        present case , a competition for which the applicant at
                                                                             first instance did not submit his candidature, although
                                                                             he was fully able to do so since he fulfilled all the
                                                                             requirements for acceptance , could in any way affect his
                                                                             legal situation .
Appeal brought on 22 July 1996 by the European
Parliament against the judgment delivered on 22 May 1996                 — Lack of repercussion of the differences between the two
by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                  notices on the review of Mr Gutierrez Quijano's
European Communities in Case T-140/94 between Enrique                        application or on the selection of the candidates
Gutierrez de Quijano y Llorens and the European                              eventually accepted .
                                 Parliament
                          ( Case C-252/96 P )
                              ( 96/C 269/37 )
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 22 May 1996
by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-140/94 between Enrique                    Appeal brought on 23 July 1996 by the Council of the
Gutierrez de Quijano y Llorens and the European                          European Union against the judgment delivered on 26 June
Parliament was brought before the Court of Justice of the                1996 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance
European Communities on 22 July 1996 by the European                     of the European Communities in Case T-91/95 between
Parliament, represented by Manfred Peter , Head of                       L. de Nil and C. Impens and the Council of the European
Division, and Jose Luis Rufas Quintana , of its Legal Service,                                           Union
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Secretariat                                     ( Case C-259/96 P )
of the European Parliament .
                                                                                ( 96/C 269/38 )
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                         An appeal against the judgment delivered on 26 June 1996
— set aside the judgment in Case T-140/94 Enrique                        by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
        Gutiérrez de Quijano y Llorens v . Parliament (1 996 ),          European Communities in Case T-91 /95 between L. de Nil


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 20 January 2005 in Case C-198/04: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directives 89/48/EEC and 92/51/EEC — Recognition of diplomas — Regulated professions — Tour guide)

text:
               5.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 57/13

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 20 January 2005
   in Case C-198/04: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directives 89/48/EEC and 92/51/EEC - Recognition of diplomas - Regulated professions - Tour guide)
   (2005/C 57/25)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-198/04: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: M. Patakia and H. Stovlbaek) v French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues, C. Isidoro and O. Christmann) – ACTION under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 4 May 2004 – the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: R. Silva de Lapuerta, President of Chamber, J. Makarczyk and P. Kūris (Rapporteur), Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 20 January 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to take all the measures necessary to comply with Council Directive 89/48/EEC 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 and, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary to comply with Council Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a second general system for the recognition of professional education and training to supplement Directive 89/48, as regards tour guides, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under those directives;

               2.

               Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 168, 26.06.2004.


29.4.2000             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 122/17
       Removal from the register of Case C-380/97 (1)                        Removal from the register of Case C-395/97 (1)
                         (2000/C 122/33)                                                     (2000/C 122/36)
By order of 20 January 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           By order of 1 February 2000 the President of the Court of
                                                                      Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-380/97 (reference for a preliminary
                                                                      from the register of Case C-395/97 (reference for a preliminary
ruling from the Arrondissementsrechtbank, The Hague): Emesa
Sugar (Free Zone) NV v Kingdom of the Netherlands and                 ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof): Landesgrundver-
                                                                      kehrsreferent der Tiroler Landesregierung v Herbert Kappes
Others.
                                                                      and Edwin Neuner.
(1) OJ C 387 of 20.12.1997.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 26 of 24.1.1998.
       Removal from the register of Case C-345/97 (1)
                         (2000/C 122/34)                                     Removal from the register of Case C-290/99 (1)
By order of 27 January 2000 the President of the Court of                                    (2000/C 122/37)
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case-345/97: Federal Republic of Germany
v Council of the European Union.                                      By order of 3 February 2000 the President of the Court of
                                                                      Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                                                                      from the register of Case-290/99: Council of the European
(1) OJ C 357 of 22.11.1997.                                           Union v Martin Bangemann.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 314 of 30.10.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-407/97 (1)
                         (2000/C 122/35)
By order of 31 January 2000 the President of the Court of                    Removal from the register of Case C-288/98 (1)
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-407/97 (reference for a preliminary
ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof): Landesgrundver-                                       (2000/C 122/38)
kehrsreferent der Tiroler Landesregierung v Adolf Sparber,
Firma Atelier Delta Entwurf — und Planungsgesellschaft mbH,           By order of 18 February 2000 the President of the Court of
en liquidation, Hans-Eberhard Junkersdorf and Maria-Margare-          Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
te Junkersdorf.                                                       from the register of Case C-288/98 (reference for a preliminary
                                                                      ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione): Istituto Nazion-
                                                                      ale della Previdenza Sociale (INPS) v Mario Maraldi SpA.
(1) OJ C 41 of 7.2.1998.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.


title: Case T-440/08: Order of the General Court of 7 November 2013 — 1-2-3.TV v OHIM — ZDF and Televersal Film- und Fernsehproduktion (1-2-3.TV) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of opposition — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               21.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 377/16

         Order of the General Court of 7 November 2013 — 1-2-3.TV v OHIM — ZDF and Televersal Film- und Fernsehproduktion (1-2-3.TV)
   (Case T-440/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of opposition - No need to adjudicate)
   2013/C 377/37
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: 1-2-3.TV GmbH (Unterföhring, Germany) (represented: initially by V. von Bomhard, A. Renck, T. Dolde and E. Nicolás Gómez, subsequently by K. Kleinschmidt and U. Grübler, lawyers)

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

      Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen (ZDF) (Mainz, Germany); and Televersal Film- und Fernsehproduktion GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented: initially by B. Krause and F. Cordt, subsequently by B. Krause, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 June 2008 (Case R 1076/2007-1), relating to opposition proceedings between 1-2-3.TV GmbH and Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen (ZDF) and Televersal Film- und Fernsehproduktion GmbH.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no further need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               The applicant and the interveners shall bear their own costs and each pay half of the costs of the defendant.

      (1)  OJ C 327, 20.12.2008.


title: Case T-180/01: Action brought on 3 August 2001 by Euroagri s.r.l. against Commission of the European Communities

text:
29.9.2001              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 275/17
Finally, the applicant argues that the Commission has misused            The Commission found that these terms and conditions of sale
its discretion in ordering repayment at Gothaer Fahrzeugwerk             were contrary to Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty since they
GmbH’s expense of aid totalling DEM 7 100 136. It argues                 restricted parallel imports and exports to other Member States.
that the Commission did not take account of Gothaer Fahr-                This decision is now contested by the applicant.
zeugwerk GmbH’s contribution to the overall result. It adds
that DEM 3300000 were undeniably used in accordance with
the initial objective, and that the remaining amount of                  In support of its Application, the applicant contests the
DEM 3800336 was determined on the basis of a distribution                applicability of Article 81(1) EC Treaty on the grounds that
ration arbitrarily adopted by the Commission, so that the                the conditions of sale do not constitute an agreement and they
contested decision is contrary to Community law and void.                have no restrictive object or effect. The applicant further claims
                                                                         that the conditions of sale compensate for a market irregularity
                                                                         caused by the setting of prices by the Spanish authorities. In
                                                                         the alternative, the applicant claims the conditions of sale are
                                                                         eligible for an exemption under Article 81(3) EC Treaty.
Action brought on 23 July 2001 by Glaxo Wellcome plc
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                         Action brought on 3 August 2001 by Euroagri s.r.l. against
                        (Case T-168/01)                                           Commission of the European Communities
                        (2001/C 275/32)                                                           (Case T-180/01)
                   (Language of the case: English)                                                (2001/C 275/33)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 23 July 2001 by Glaxo Wellcome                   An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
plc, having its registered office in Middlesex (UK), represented         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
by I.S. Forrester Q.C. and A.P. Schulz of White & Case                   European Communities on 3 August 2001 by Euroagri s.r.l.,
Brussels, F. Depoortere, T. Louko and I. Vandenborre of                  represented by Walter Masucci, lawyer.
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Brussels, and
S. Martinez Lage of Martinez Lage & Associados                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         —     annul the decision of the Commission of the European
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                    Communities of 6 June 2001 C(2001)1274;
—      annul the Commission decision of 8 May 2001;                      —     in the alternative, annul in part the contested decision
                                                                               and reduce, in proportion with the actual investments
—      take such other or further steps as justice may require;                made, the financial contribution allocated to Euroagri
                                                                               s.r.l. by the Commission’s decision of 3 December 1992;
—      order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                         —     order the Commission of the European Communities to
                                                                               pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant notified its new terms and conditions of sale to
the Commission pursuant to Regulation 17/62. The new terms               By this application, the applicant company seeks the annul-
and conditions of sale of the applicant consisted of two                 ment of the decision of the Commission of the European
different pricing systems for its pharmaceutical products. The           Communities of 6 June 2001 C(2001)1274 cancelling the
first one was used for products to be sold in Spain and financed         contribution allocated to the applicant itself by decision
by the Spanish Social Security system. In this case the prices           C(92)3124 of 3 December 1992, pursuant to Council Regu-
were, according to the applicant, all set by the Spanish                 lation (EEC) No 4256/88 of 19 December 1988, laying down
authorities at a low level. The second system applied to                 provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as
products to be sold outside the scope of the Spanish price               regards the EAGGF Guidance Section (1) in the context of
setting system by wholesalers authorised according to Spanish            project No 92. IT.06.069 entitled ‘Pilot demonstration project
Law. In the latter system, the prices were set by the applicant.         for the use of new “Endovena” technology on fruit trees’.
 ---pagebreak--- C 275/18              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    29.9.2001
In support of its claim, the applicant alleges:                         —    error of assessment by the defendant vitiating the contest-
                                                                             ed measure inasmuch as it is illogical and inadequate;
—    breach of the obligation to state reasons;
                                                                        —    breach of the principle of proportionality so far as
                                                                             concerns the claim in the alternative.
—    breach of the essential procedural requirements provided
     for by the abovementioned Regulation No 4253/88,
     specifically with respect to Articles 24 and 25 thereof;           (1) OJ L 374 of 31.12.1988, p. 25.


title: Case T-433/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 30 June 2008 — Ryanair v Commission

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/67

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 30 June 2008 — Ryanair v Commission
   (Case T-433/07) (1)

   (2008/C 209/120)

      Language of the case: English

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

      (1)  OJ C 22, 26.1.2008.


title: Case C-499/08: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark)) — Ingeniørforeningen i Danmark, acting on behalf of Ole Andersen v Region Syddanmark (Directive 2000/78/EC — Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age — Non-payment of a severance allowance to workers who are entitled to an old-age pension)

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/7

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark)) — Ingeniørforeningen i Danmark, acting on behalf of Ole Andersen v Region Syddanmark
   (Case C-499/08) (1)

   (Directive 2000/78/EC - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age - Non-payment of a severance allowance to workers who are entitled to an old-age pension)
   2010/C 346/10
   Language of the case: Danish

      Referring court

   Vestre Landsret

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ingeniørforeningen i Danmark, acting on behalf of Ole Andersen

      Defendant: Region Syddanmark

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Vestre Landsret — Interpretation of Articles 2 and 6 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16) — National legislation providing for the payment of a severance allowance for dismissed employees who have been employed for a certain number of consecutive years with the same employer, except where they have reached an age where they are entitled to an old-age pension to which the employer has contributed — Direct or indirect discrimination on grounds of age

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 2 and 6(1) of Council Directive 2000/78 of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as precluding national legislation pursuant to which workers who are eligible for an old-age pension from their employer under a pension scheme which they have joined before attaining the age of 50 years cannot, on that ground alone, claim a severance allowance aimed at assisting workers with more than 12 years of service in the undertaking in finding new employment.

      (1)  OJ C 19, 24.1.2009.


title: Case C-250/16 P: Appeal brought on 2 May 2016 by Ludwig-Bölkow-Systemtechnik GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 February 2016 in Case T-53/14 Ludwig-Bölkow-Systemtechnik v Commission

text:
               20.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 222/9

         Appeal brought on 2 May 2016 by Ludwig-Bölkow-Systemtechnik GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 February 2016 in Case T-53/14 Ludwig-Bölkow-Systemtechnik v Commission

   (Case C-250/16 P)
   (2016/C 222/11)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Ludwig-Bölkow-Systemtechnik GmbH (represented by: M. Núñez Müller, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside point 3 of the operative part of the judgment under appeal, in which the action in Case T-53/14 was dismissed as to the remainder, and the decision on costs in that regard in point 4;

               —

               amend point 2 of the operative part of the judgment under appeal, in which the amounts owed as liquidated damages by Ludwig-Bölkow-Systemtechnik GmbH were reduced to 10 % of the advances to be reimbursed, to the effect that Ludwig-Bölkow-Systemtechnik GmbH does not owe any amount as liquidated damages;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs incurred both in the appeal and — as an addition to point 4 of the operative part of the judgment under appeal — at first instance in Case T-53/14.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   By the appeal, the appellant does not contest point 1 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court in Case T-53/14 in which the General Court held that there was no longer any need to adjudicate on the second and third heads of claim. Nor does the appellant contest point 2 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court in Case T-53/14 in so far as the General Court reduced the amounts owed as liquidated damages to 10 % of the advances to be reimbursed for the HyWays, HyApproval and HarmonHy projects; point 2 of the operative part of the judgment is contested only in so far as it did not, as sought in the application, reduce the amounts payable as liquidated damages to zero. Point 3 of the operative part of the judgment is contested in so far as the General Court dismissed the first and (in part) the fourth heads of claim. Point 4 of the operative part of the judgment is contested in so far as the success of the action must lead to a different ruling on costs and in so far as the General Court did not, as applied for by the appellant, order the Commission to pay the costs relating to the heads of claim on which it was found that there was no need to adjudicate.
   The appellant submits that the judgment under appeal infringes the obligation to state reasons under Article 36 and Article 53(1) of the Statute of the Court of Justice, the principle of good faith, the prohibition on distortion of the evidence and the applicable Belgian law.
   The judgment under appeal infringes the obligation to state reasons since the General Court erred in law in proceeding from the premiss without any substantive justification that the method used by the appellant for calculating the hourly rate capable of being reimbursed as costs led to the Commission participating in covering global costs independently of the projects.
   Furthermore, the judgment under appeal infringes the general legal principle of good faith, since the lack of clarity in the general terms and conditions of the contracts at issue should have been interpreted against the Commission and in favour of the appellant, rather than transferring the risk in their application to the appellant.
   The judgment under appeal also infringes the prohibition of distortion of the evidence, since the assessment of the appellant’s presentation of the facts at first instance is manifestly incorrect.
   The judgment under appeal equally infringes mandatory rules of the applicable Belgian law and the principle of the right to effective judicial protection, since it wrongly upholds an ‘unambiguous’ interpretation of the general terms and conditions and thereby excludes the application of Belgian law.
   Lastly, the judgment under appeal also infringes the obligation to state reasons and the applicable law, since it recognises, in connection with the liability to pay liquidated damages, that Article II.30 of the general terms and conditions infringes mandatory rules of Belgian law, yet does not conclude that Article II.30 of the general terms and conditions is inapplicable but errs in law in making a reduction in damages which preserves that article’s validity.


title: Case C-396/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Satakunnan käräjäoikeus (Finland) lodged on 12 July 2013 — Sähköalojen ammattiliitto ry v Elektrobudowa Spółka Akcyjna

text:
               7.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/37

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Satakunnan käräjäoikeus (Finland) lodged on 12 July 2013 — Sähköalojen ammattiliitto ry v Elektrobudowa Spółka Akcyjna
   (Case C-396/13)
   2013/C 260/67
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Referring court

   Satakunnan käräjäoikeus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Sähköalojen ammattiliitto ry

      Defendant: Elektrobudowa Spółka Akcyjna

      Questions referred

               1.1

               May a trade union acting in the interests of workers rely directly on Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union as an immediate source of rights against a service provider from another Member State in a situation in which the provision claimed to be contrary to Article 47 (Article 84 of the Polish Labour Code) is a purely national provision?

               1.2

               Does it follow from European Union law, in particular the principle of effective legal protection apparent from Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Articles 5, second paragraph, and 6 of Directive 96/71/EC, (1) interpreted in conjunction with the freedom of association in trade union matters protected by Article 12 of the Charter, in proceedings concerning claims which have become due for the purposes of that directive in the State in which the work is performed, that the national court must disapply a provision of the labour code of the workers’ home State which prevents the assignment of a pay claim to a trade union of the State in which the work is performed, if the corresponding provision of the State in which the work is performed permits the assignment of a pay claim which has become due and hence the status of claimant to a trade union of which all the workers who have assigned their claims are members?

               1.3

               Must the terms of Protocol No 30 annexed to the Treaty of Lisbon be interpreted as meaning that a national court situated in a country other than Poland or the United Kingdom must take them into account in the event that the dispute in question has a significant link with Poland, in particular where the law applicable to the contracts of employment is Polish law? In other words, does the Polish-British Protocol preclude the Finnish court from determining that the Polish laws, regulations or administrative provisions, practices or measures are contrary to the fundamental rights, freedoms and principles proclaimed in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?

               1.4

               Must Article 14(2) of the Rome I Regulation be interpreted, having regard to Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as prohibiting the application of national legislation of a Member State which contains a prohibition of the assignment of claims and demands arising from an employment relationship?

               1.5

               Must Article 14(2) of the Rome I Regulation be interpreted as meaning that the law applicable to the assignment of claims arising from a contract of employment is the law which applies to the contract of employment in question under the Rome I Regulation, regardless of whether the provisions of another law also affect the content of the individual claim?

               1.6.

               Is Article 3 of Directive 96/71, read in the light of Articles 56 and 57 TFEU, to be interpreted as meaning that the concept of minimum rates of pay covers basic hourly pay according to pay groups, job guarantee pay, holiday allowance, flat-rate daily allowance and compensation for daily travel-to-work time, as those terms of work are defined in a collective agreement declared universally applicable and falling within the scope of the annex to the directive?

                           1.6.1.

                           Must Articles 56 [and 57] TFEU and/or Article 3 of Directive 96/71/EC be interpreted as precluding Member States in their capacity as ‘host State’ from imposing, in their national legislation (a universally applicable collective agreement), on service providers from other Member States an obligation to pay compensation for travelling time and a daily allowance to employees posted to their territory, taking into account that under the national legislation referred to all posted workers are regarded as travelling to work for the whole period of their posting, which entitles them to compensation for travelling time and daily allowances?

                           1.6.2.

                           Must Articles 56 and 57 TFEU and/or Article 3 of Directive 96/71/EC be interpreted as not permitting the national court to decline to recognise a pay classification created and used in its home State by a company from another Member State, if that has been done?

                           1.6.3.

                           Must Articles 56 and 57 TFEU and/or Article 3 of Directive 96/71/EC be interpreted as permitting an employer from another Member State to determine, validly and so as to bind the court of the country in which the work is performed, the categorisation of employees in pay groups in a situation in which a universally applicable collective agreement in the country in which the work is performed requires a categorisation into pay groups with a different end result to be made, or may the Member State which is the host State to which the employees of a service provider from another Member State have been posted lay down rules to be observed by the service provider on the criteria for categorisation of employees into pay groups?

                           1.6.4.

                           When interpreting Article 3 of Directive 96/71/EC, read in the light of Articles 56 and 57 TFEU, are accommodation paid for by an employer who is obliged under a collective agreement mentioned in Question 6 and meal vouchers provided in accordance with a contract of employment by a service provider from another Member State to be regarded as compensation for expenses caused by being a posted worker or as part of the concept of minimum rates of pay within the meaning of Article 3(1)?

                           1.6.5.

                           May Article 3 of Directive 96/71/EC in conjunction with Articles 56 and 57 TFEU be interpreted as meaning that a universally applicable collective agreement of the State in which the work is performed must be regarded as justified on the ground of requirements of public policy, when interpreting the question of job-based pay, compensation for travelling time and daily allowances?

      (1)  Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services (OJ 1997 L 18, p. 1).


title: Appeal brought on 22 March 1997 by Union Française de l'Express (UFEX, previously called Syndicat Français de l'Express International, SFEI), DHL International and CRIE against the judgment delivered on 15 January 1997 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-77/95 between SFEI and Others and the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-119/97 P)

text:
No C 142/ 14           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    10 . 5 . 97
which was received at the Court Registry on 20 March                      pension    fund   within    the meaning     of the     Wet
 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Henia                      betreffende verplichte Deelneming in een Bedrijfspen
Babahenini v. Belgian State on the following question:                    sioenfonds ( Law on Compulsory Participation in an
                                                                          Industrial Pension Scheme )?
In the light of Article 39 of the Cooperation Agreement
between the European Economic Community and the                      4 . Must Articles 86 and 90 of the EC Treaty, read
People's Democratic Republic of Algeria, approved by                      together, be interpreted as meaning that there is an
Regulation ( EEC ) No 2210/78 ('), may a Member State                     infringement of those provisions where the authorities
refuse to grant disablement benefit ( in this case that                   accord an industrial pension scheme an exclusive right
provided for by the Belgian Law of 27 February 1987 ) to                  which gives rise to a serious restriction of the freedom
a disabled person of Algerian nationality who has not                     to make pension arrangements with a private insurer ?
herself worked in Belgium, where that person resides in
Belgium with her spouse, an Algerian national in receipt
of a Belgian retirement pension ?
(') OJ No L 263 , 27. 9 . 1978 , p . 1 .
                                                                     Appeal brought on 22 March 1997 by Union Française de
                                                                     l'Express (UFEX, previously called Syndicat Français de
                                                                     l'Express International, SFEI), DHL International and
                                                                     CRIE against    the judgment delivered on 15 January 1997
                                                                     by the Third     Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                          the European    Communities in Case T-77/95 between SFEI
Kantongerecht, Roermond, by judgments of that court of               and Others       and the Commission of the European
18 March 1997 in the case of Brentjens' Handelsonder                                          Communities
neming BV v. Stichting Bedrijfspensioenfonds voor de
                  Handel in Bouwmaterialen                                                 ( Case C-l 19/97 P )
         ( Cases C-l 15/97, C-116/97 and C-117/97)                                            ( 97/C 142/30 )
                          ( 97/C 142/29 )
                                                                     An appeal against the judgment delivered on 15 January
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the               1997 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance
European Communities by judgments of the                             of the European Communities in Case T-77/95 between
Kantongerecht ( Cantonal Court), Roermond, of 18 March               SFEI and Others and the Commission of the European
1997, which were received at the Court Registry on                   Communities was brought before the Court of Justice on
20 March 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of               22 March 1997 by Union Française de l'Express (UFEX,
Brentjens' Handelsonderneming BV v. Stichting Bedrijfs              previously called Syndicat Français de l'Express Interna
pensioenfonds voor de Handel in Bouwmaterialen on the                tional, SFEI ), established in Roissy CDG ( France ), DHL
following questions:                                                 International, established in Roissy ( France ), and CRIE,
                                                                     established in Asnières ( France ), represented by Eric
                                                                     Morgan de Rivery, of the Paris Bar, and Jacques Derenne,
1 . Must Article 85 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty be interpreted as         of the Brussels and Paris Bars, with an address for service
    meaning that there is an agreement or decision of an             in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alex Schmitt, 62
    undertaking or association of undertakings which                Avenue Guillaume .
    restricts competition or affects trade between Member
    States, as those elements are respectively referred to in
    that provision, where social partners within a                  The appellant claims that the Court should:
    particular sector of activity make agreements
    concerning pensions under which a single industrial
    pension scheme is set up for the whole sector, to which         — annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance
    all workers employed within the sector are in principle              delivered on 15 January 1997 in Case T-77/95 H SFEI
    to be compulsorily affiliated and which is to have the               and Others v. Commission,
    sole right to administer the funds collected for that
    purpose within the sector ?                                     — itself give final judgment in the case in accordance
                                                                         with Article 54 of the EC Statute of the Court of
2 . Must Articles 3 (g), 5 and 85 of the EC Treaty, read                 Justice,
    together, be interpreted as meaning that there is an
    infringement of those provisions where the authorities
    make participation in a single industrial pension               — in the alternative, in the event of the Court not itself
    scheme, as described in Question 1 , compulsory for                  giving final judgment, refer the matter back to a
                                                                         Chamber of the Court of First Instance with a
    undertakings within a particular sector of activity ?
                                                                         different composition,
3 . Must the term 'undertaking', as used in the
    competition provisions (Articles 85 to 94 ) of the EC           — order the Commission to pay the costs or, if it does
    Treaty, be interpreted as including an industrial                    not give final judgment, reserve the costs .
 ---pagebreak--- 10 . 5 . 97           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 142/ 15
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                  — errors of law in the application of the concept of
                                                                          misuse of powers.
— Misrepresentation of the contested decision: the Court             (') OJ No C 54 , 22 . 2 . 1997, p. 20.
     of First Instance misrepresented the contested decision         ( ) Case T-24/90 Automec Sri v. Commission [ 1992 ] ECR II
      by referring exclusively to the Community interest as              2223 .
     the sole independent ground of the contested decision,
     even though that term is not used anywhere in the
     contested decision and, moreover, nothing in the
     contested decision supports the conclusion that the
     Commission took into account the criteria laid down
     for determination of any such Community interest
                                                                     Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal,
     in the judgment of the Court of First Instance                  London, by order of that court of 26 October 1995 , in the
     in the second Automec (2 ) case. Furthermore, the
                                                                     case of Upjohn Ltd against 1 . The Licensing Authority
     Commission makes no reference to that judgment,                 established by the Medicines Act 1968; 2. Secretary of
     notwithstanding its usual practice of doing so when it          State for Health; 3 . Secretary of State for Wales; 4.
     wishes to rely on it,                                           Secretary of State for Scotland; 5 . Minister for Health and
                                                                                Social Services for Northern Ireland
— error of law in that the judgment states the                                                 ( Case C-120/97 )
     Commission may base the contested decision on a                                             ( 97/C 142/31 )
     reference to another decision,
                                                                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
— infringement of Article 190 of the EC Treaty,                      European Communities by an order of the Court of
                                                                     Appeal, London, of 26 October 1995, which was received
                                                                     at the Court Registry on 24 March 1997, for a
— lack of legal basis : the Court of First Instance did not          preliminary ruling in the case of Upjohn Ltd against 1 .
     undertake the essential investigations that would have          The Licensing Authority established by the Medicines Act
     enabled it to establish the correctness of its conclusion       1968 ; 2 . Secretary of State for Health; 3 . Secretary of
     that the applicant was wrong to state that La Poste             State for Wales; 4 . Secretary of State for Scotland; 5 .
     could continue to grant cross-subsidies in the absence          Minister for Health and Social Services for Northern
     of requests by third parties to join its network and            Ireland, on the following questions:
     that accordingly it could or could not lawfully apply
     Article 86 of the EC Treaty or invoke the Community             1.   On the true construction of Council Directive 65/65/
     interest,                                                            EEC n as amended and in the light of Community
                                                                          law generally, is it the duty of a national court when
                                                                          ruling upon the compatibility with the aforesaid
— error of law in that the Court of First Instance could                  Community law of a decision of a Licensing Authority
     not lawfully infer from the documents before it that                 of a Member State to revoke a licence held by the
     the Commission duly found that the infringements had                 manufacturer of a medicine product to decide whether
     ceased,                                                              or not the said decision was the correct decision as
                                                                          opposed to a decision which the Licensing Authority
                                                                          could reasonably have reached on the material before
— infringement of rules of law concerning appraisal of                    it ? .
     the Community interest: in order to appraise the
     Community interest, the Commission was under an                 2 . If the answer to Question 1 is that the national court
     obligation to take account of the criteria of assessment             has to decide whether the decision of the competent
     laid down in the Community case-law, in particular                   authority was the correct decision does Community
     the judgment in Automec II. By taking the view that                  law require it to answer that question solely on the
     'the Commission is entitled to take other relevant                   basis of the material before the competent authority or
     factors into account in that assessment' and any such                is it obliged to -look at any relevant material coming to
     other elements as it sees fit to consider, the Court of              light after the decision ?
     First   Instance  relieved  the   Commission     of  that
     obligation,                                                     3 . Was it lawful for the Licensing Authority to revoke the
                                                                          licence when the Committee for Proprietary Medicinal
                                                                          Products ( CPMP ) was known to the Licensing
— infringement of Article 86 of the EC Treaty in                          Authority to be soon to produce an opinion as to
     conjunction with Articles 3g, 89 and 155 of the EC                   continuance of the licence ?
     Treaty,
                                                                     (') Council Directive 65/65/EEC of 26 January 1965 on the
                                                                         approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or
— breach of the general principles of Community law                      administrative action relating to proprietary medicinal
     (the principle of sound administration; the principle of            products ( English Special Edition 1965—1966, November
     equal treatment and non-discrimination; and the                     1972, p. 20 ).
     principles of legal certainty and protection of
     legitimate expectations ),


title: Case C-492/13: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Varna — Bulgaria) — Traum EOOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 138(1) — Exemptions for intra-Community transactions — Purchaser not registered for VAT purposes — Whether the vendor is required to establish the authenticity of the signature of the purchaser or his representative — Principles of proportionality, legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations — Direct effect)

text:
               8.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 439/11

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Varna — Bulgaria) — Traum EOOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite
   (Case C-492/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 138(1) - Exemptions for intra-Community transactions - Purchaser not registered for VAT purposes - Whether the vendor is required to establish the authenticity of the signature of the purchaser or his representative - Principles of proportionality, legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations - Direct effect))
   (2014/C 439/15)
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Administrativen sad Varna

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Traum EOOD

      Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

      Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               Articles 138(1) and 139(1), second subparagraph, of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2010/88/EU of 7 December 2010, must be interpreted as precluding, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, the tax authorities of a Member State from refusing to grant an exemption from value added tax in respect of an intra-Community supply of goods on the ground that the purchaser was not registered for value added tax purposes in another Member State and the supplier has proven neither the authenticity of the signature on the documents submitted in support of its declaration in respect of a supply it claims to be exempt from value added tax nor that the person who signed those documents on behalf of the purchaser had the authority to represent the purchaser, where the evidence establishing entitlement to the exemption submitted by the supplier in support of its declaration is consistent with the list of documents to be submitted to those authorities under national law and has been accepted by them, initially, as supporting evidence, which is a matter for the referring court to verify.

               2)

               Article 138(1) of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2010/88, must be interpreted as having direct effect, so that it may be relied upon by taxable persons before national courts against the State in order to obtain an exemption from value added tax in respect of an intra-Community supply of goods.

      (1)  OJ C 344, 23.11.2013.


title: Case F-59/08: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 24 October 2008 — Klug v EMEA

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/60

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 24 October 2008 — Klug v EMEA
   (Case F-59/08) (1)

   (2008/C 313/112)

      Language of the case: German

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

      (1)  OJ C 223, 30.8.2008, p. 62.


title: Case T-395/05: Order of the Court of First Instance of 13 June 2007 — Multikauf Warenhandelsgesellschaft v OHIM — Demo Holding (webmulti)

text:
               25.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 199/44

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 13 June 2007 — Multikauf Warenhandelsgesellschaft v OHIM — Demo Holding (webmulti)
   (Case T-395/05) (1)

   (2007/C 199/85)

      Language of the case: German

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

      (1)  OJ C 48, 25.2.2006.