title: Case C-356/99: Action brought on 15 December 1999 by Sonia Marion Elder and Robert Dale Elder against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 63/30               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       4.3.2000
— hold that the denomination ‘Trustedlink’ is in conformity              represented by Jean-Noël Louis, Greta-Françoise Parmentier
    with Article 7 of Regulation No 40/94 for the above                  and Véronique Peere, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
    reasons;                                                             service in Luxembourg at the offices of Société de Gestion
                                                                         Fiduciaire, 2-4 Rue Beck.
— condemn the OHIM to pay all expenses.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         — annul the decision rejecting the application by the appli-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              cant for the post of Head of the unit responsible for
                                                                             ‘Resources, internal control and relations with the Court of
                                                                             Auditors’ within the former Directorate-General XXIII;
Trade mark concerned:         ‘Trustedlink’
                                                                         — annul the appointment of another candidate to that post;
Product or service:           Computer software for electronic
                              commerce, business consulting
                                                                         — order the defendant to pay the costs.
                              services for integrating commerce
                              technologies and services, softwa-
                              re integration services for integrat-
                              ing corporate application systems          Pleas in law and main arguments
                              with electronic commerce tech-
                              nologies and services, education           The applicant maintains that, by adopting the contested
                              services for electronic commerce           decisions, the defendant has breached the legal framework
                              technologies and services, as well         which it imposed on itself in drawing up the notice of vacancy,
                              as services for assisting organis-         and has infringed the principle of equal treatment and the
                              ations in deploying, expanding             principle that officials should have reasonable career prospects.
                              or managing electronic commerce            He further maintains that the defendant has disregarded
                              technologies and services (classes         Article 25 of the Staff Regulations of officials, inasmuch as it
                              9, 35, 38, 41 and 42)                      has failed to provide him with any information enabling him
                                                                         to examine the validity of the contested decisions.
Decision        contested     decision of the examiner not to
before the Board of           consider the trade mark eligible
Appeal:                       for registration, pursuant to
                              Article 7(1)(b) of the Community
                              Trade Mark Regulation (CTMR)
Pleas in law relied on:       missapplication of Article 7(1)(b)
                              of the CTMR                                Action brought on 15 December 1999 by Sonia Marion
                                                                         Elder and Robert Dale Elder against the Commission of
Subsidiary:                   lack of grounds                                             the European Communities
                                                                                (Case C-356/99)
                                                                                (2000/C 63/61)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
Action brought on 9 December 1999 by Christian Brum-
ter against the Commission of the European Communities                   An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 15 December 1999 by Sonia
                        (Case T-351/99)                                  Marion Elder and Robert Dale Elder, represented by Scott
                                                                         Crosby, with an address for service at the Chambers of
                                                                         Kemmler Rapp Böhlke & Crosby, 9 Rond-Point Schuman,
                         (2000/C 63/60)
                                                                         1040 Brussels.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         — annul the refusal of the defendant constituting a failure to
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                    give a substantive reply to the confirmatory application of
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                   the applicants of 25 October 1999;
European Communities on 9 December 1999 by Christian
Brumter, residing in Pristina (Federal Republic of Yugoslavia),          — order the defendant to pay the applicants’ costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 4.3.2000               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 63/31
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         — Declare Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2799/1999 of
The applicants have already made two applications to the                     17 December 1999 laying down details of rules for
Commission for review of its refusal to grant access to certain              applying Regulation (EEC) No 1255/1999 as regards the
minutes of the Advisory Committee on VAT established by                      grant of aid for skimmed milk and skimmed-milk powder
Article 29 of the Sixth VAT Directive (1). In the course of the              intended for animal feed and the sale of such skimmed-milk
administrative proceedings the applicants lodged another                     powder to be null and void;
application for review with the Secretary General of the
Commission.                                                              — Order the defendant to reimburse the applicant’s costs.
In the present case they now submit that, by failing to give a           Pleas in law and main argument
substantive reply within one month to that application, the
Commission was deemed to have refused the application by                 The implementing regulation of the Commission under chal-
virtue of Article 2(4) of Commission Decision 94/90/ECSC/E-              lenge cancelled grants for skimmed milk for use as liquid
C/Euratom (Access decision). That refusal was unlawful per se            feedingstuff. The plaintiffs have calf rearing concerns, which
because it infringed Article 2(2) of the Access Decision and, in         have hitherto been using liquid feedingstuff, and dairies have
addition, Article 253 EC because, although a decision, it wholly         been were delivering milk to those concerns. The plaintiffs
fails to give reasons.                                                   consider themselves to be actually and individually concerned
                                                                         by the Regulation.
(1) Case T-78/99 Elder & Elder v Kommission, OJ C 174 of                 The plaintiffs essentially advance the following arguments:
    19.6.1999, p. 11, and Case T-178/99 Elder & Elder v Kommission,
    OJ C 281 of 1.10.1999, p. 28.                                        — Lack of jurisdiction on the part of the
                                                                             Commission
                                                                             In cancelling the grants, the Commission acted ultra vires
                                                                             its jurisdiction to issue implementing measures.
                                                                         — Infringement of an essential procedural
                                                                             requirement
Action brought on 5 January 2000 by Gustav Hölzl,                            The legal measure under challenge does not contain an
Günter Wiegert, Molkerei Wagenfeld Karl Niemann                              adequate statement of reasons.
GmbH & Co. KG, Josef Brüninghoff and Ludger Nienhaus
                                                                         — Infringement of the Treaty and general
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                             principles of law
                         (Case T-1/2000)                                     There is no objective justification for drawing a distinction
                                                                             between skimmed milk and skimmed-milk powder, in
                                                                             respect of which grants may still be made, and the
                          (2000/C 63/62)                                     distinction therefore infringes general principles of law.
                                                                             The regulation under challenge jeopardises the existence
                                                                             of the plaintiffs’ concerns since they are not in a position
                   (Language of the case: German)                            to change to skimmed-milk powder for animal feed. It
                                                                             therefore affects their rights in immoveable property.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                    Placing a disproportionate amount of the burden on one
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                   particular group of economic operators constitutes an
European Communities on 5 January 2000 by Gustav Hölzl                       infringement of the principles of proportionality and
of Damme, Germany, and four others, represented by Ulrich                    the protection of legitimate expectations and of the
Schrömbges and Lothar Harings, Sozietät Graf von Westphalen                  Commission’s duty of care. Finally, the implementing
Fritze und Modest, Hamburg, Germany, with an address for                     regulation infringes basic Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999,
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt and                          since the Commission did not have power to issue the
Madernach, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt, L-2010 Luxembourg.                        implementing provisions in question.


title: Case T-308/10 P: Appeal brought on 20 July 2010 by European Commission against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 11 May 2010 in Case F-30/08 Nanopoulos v Commission

text:
               9.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 274/24

         Appeal brought on 20 July 2010 by European Commission against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 11 May 2010 in Case F-30/08 Nanopoulos v Commission
   (Case T-308/10 P)
   ()
   2010/C 274/38
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by J. Currall and by E.Bourtzalas and I. Antypas, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: Fotios Nanopoulos (Itzig, Luxembourg)

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The General Court is asked to

               —

               set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 May 2010 in Case F-30/08 Nanopoulos v Commission;

               —

               if the judgment is upheld, set the correct level of compensation; and

               —

               order the respondent to pay all costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   With the above appeal, the appellant asks the General Court to set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 May 2010 in Case F-30/08 Nanopoulos v Commission, ordering the Commission to pay to the respondent compensation for non-material damage amounting to EUR 90 000 and to bear all the costs.
   In support of its appeal, the Commission relies on the following grounds of appeal:

               —

               infringement of Articles 90 to 91 of the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities (‘the Staff Regulations’) and the principle of legal certainty in that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in law by ruling that the claim brought by the respondent should be deemed to be an action for damages, without stating any reasons whatsoever;

               —

               error in law and defective statement of reasons, in that the Civil Service Tribunal considered that the action for damages was brought in good time, and ruled that the decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings was in breach of the presumption of innocence;

               —

               infringement of Community law, error in law and defective statement of reasons, in that the Civil Service Tribunal failed to apply the principle of law requiring a ‘sufficiently serious infringement’ and did not explain why a departure from the existing case law would be necessary in the present case;

               —

               infringement of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations, error in law and defective statement of reasons in that the Civil Service Tribunal considered that the appointing authority was obliged to provide immediate assistance to the respondent without prior investigation and before expiry of the period of four months under that article for responding to requests;

               —

               manifest error in law and in the statement of reasons in that the Civil Service Tribunal ruled that the Commission, first, is responsible for the alleged leaks to the press and, second, erred in initiating disciplinary proceedings;

               —

               infringement of the principle of proportionality and error in law, in that the Civil Service Tribunal awarded in respect of the non-material damage suffered by the respondent compensation amounting to EUR 90 000.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 October 2004 in Case T-390/02, Antonio Cagnato v Court of Justice of the European Communities (Officials — Action for damages — Admissibility — Exposure to asbestos — Occupational disease — Damage)

text:
               18.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 314/18

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 14 October 2004
   in Case T-390/02, Antonio Cagnato v Court of Justice of the European Communities (1)

   (Officials - Action for damages - Admissibility - Exposure to asbestos - Occupational disease - Damage)
   (2004/C 314/46)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-390/02, Antonio Cagnato, an official of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, residing in Dippach-Gare (Luxembourg), represented by J. Iturriagagoitia Bassas and K. Delvolvé, lawyers, against Court of Justice of the European Communities (Agent: M. Schauss, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for damages for the physical harm and the non-material, professional and financial loss allegedly suffered by the applicant — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: H. Legal, President, V. Tiili and M. Vilaras, Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 October 2004, in which it:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 44 of 22.2.2003.


title: Case T-69/05: Action brought on 11 February 2005 by European Dynamics S.A. against the European Food Safety Authority

text:
               30.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/34

         Action brought on 11 February 2005 by European Dynamics S.A. against the European Food Safety Authority
   (Case T-69/05)
   (2005/C 106/70)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the European Food Safety Authority was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 11 February 2005 by European Dynamics S.A., established in Athens (Greece), represented by N. Korogiannakis, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of EFSA, to evaluate the applicant's bid as not successful and award the contract to the successful contractor as well as all other later decisions of EFSA related to the above;

               —

               order the EFSA to pay the applicant's legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application, even if the current application is rejected.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant company filed a bid in response to EFSA's call for tenders EFSA/IT/00012 (1) for the software and services for establishing an Extranet between the Members States' national agencies, EFSA and the European Commission. By the contested decision the applicant's bid was rejected and the contract awarded to another bidder.
   In support of its application to annul the contested decisions the applicant contends that the defendant violated the Financial Regulation (2) as well as Article 17(1) of Directive 92/50 (3) by using evaluation criteria, that were not well specified in the call for tenders. According to the applicant, by accepting without any further processing and cross-checking the opinion of officers of the tenderer's clients, EFSA attributed part of its evaluation rights to third parties. The applicant further argues that under Directive 92/50 the satisfaction of a bidder's clients cannot be taken into account in order to exclude the bidder but can only be used as an ‘award criterion’.
   The applicant also claims that the defendant committed manifest errors of appreciation in the evaluation of the bid it had submitted. The applicant contests certain statements contained in the report of the Evaluation Committee, regarding the fact that one of the applicant's clients had neither purchased nor used the product offered by the applicant and the fact that another Community institution was not satisfied with the applicant's product. The applicant also considers, in the same context, that the method used by EFSA during the evaluation procedure, consisting in simple telephone calls without any official requests nor cross-checks of the information received, was inadequate and in itself suffices in order to establish a manifest error of assessment.
   The applicant finally submits that the defendant failed to provide adequate reasons for its decision, in violation of Article 253 EC.

      (1)  OJ 2004/S 153-132262.

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities, OJ L 248, 16/09/2002, p. 1.

      (3)  Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts, OJ L 209, 24/07/1992, p. 1.


title: Case T-405/13: Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2014  — Comptoir d'Épicure v OHIM — A-Rosa Akademie (da rosa) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for international registration designating the European Community — Figurative mark da rosa — Earlier Community word mark aROSA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 and Rule 22 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)

text:
               9.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/48

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2014 — Comptoir d'Épicure v OHIM — A-Rosa Akademie (da rosa)
   (Case T-405/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for international registration designating the European Community - Figurative mark da rosa - Earlier Community word mark aROSA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 and Rule 22 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95))
   (2015/C 046/60)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Le Comptoir d'Épicure (Paris, France) (represented by: S. Arnaud, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: A-Rosa Akademie GmbH (Rostock, Germany) (represented by: A. Theis, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 May 2013 (Case R 1195/2012-5), concerning opposition proceedings between A-Rosa Akademie Gmbh and Le Comptoir d’Épicure.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders Le Comptoir d’Épicure to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 284, 28.9.2013.


title: Case T-457/11: Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2013 — Valeo Vision v Commission (Application for annulment — Common Customs Tariff — Classification in the Combined Nomenclature — Tariff heading — Lack of individual concern — Regulatory act entailing implementing measures — Inadmissibility)

text:
               26.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/24

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2013 — Valeo Vision v Commission
   (Case T-457/11) (1)

   (Application for annulment - Common Customs Tariff - Classification in the Combined Nomenclature - Tariff heading - Lack of individual concern - Regulatory act entailing implementing measures - Inadmissibility)
   2013/C 313/46
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Valeo Vision (Bobigny, France) (represented by: R. Ledru, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, B. R. Killmann and L. Keppenne, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for the annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 603/2011 of the Commission of 20 June 2011 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (OJ 2011 L 163, p. 10).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action as inadmissible.

               2.

               Orders Valeo Vision to pay its own costs and those of the European Commission

      (1)  OJ C 298, 8.10.2011.


title: Case C-580/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 9 December 2010 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën, other party: G. Frank

text:
               5.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/8

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 9 December 2010 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën, other party: G. Frank
   (Case C-580/10)
   2011/C 72/13
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Other party: G. Frank

      Question referred

   In the light of Article 18 EC (now Article 21 TFEU), does Community law govern a situation in which a Member State levies a tax on the first use on the road network in its territory of a vehicle which is registered in another Member State, has been borrowed from a resident of that other Member State and has been driven for private purposes in the territory of the first Member State by a person who is a resident of that Member State but a national of the other Member State?


title: Case C-590/13: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 11 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Idexx Laboratories Italia Srl v Agenzia delle Entrate (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Indirect taxation — VAT — Sixth Directive — Articles 18 and 22 — Right to deduct — Intra-Community acquisitions — Reverse charge procedure — Substantive requirements — Formal requirements — Failure to comply with the formal requirements)

text:
               9.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/14

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 11 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Idexx Laboratories Italia Srl v Agenzia delle Entrate
   (Case C-590/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Indirect taxation - VAT - Sixth Directive - Articles 18 and 22 - Right to deduct - Intra-Community acquisitions - Reverse charge procedure - Substantive requirements - Formal requirements - Failure to comply with the formal requirements))
   (2015/C 046/19)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Corte suprema di cassazione

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Idexx Laboratories Italia Srl

      Defendant: Agenzia delle Entrate

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 18(1)(d) and 22 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 91/680/EEC of 16 December 1991, must be interpreted as containing formal requirements relating to the right to deduct, failure to comply with which, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, cannot result in the loss of that right.

      (1)  OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 24 October 1995 in Case C-266/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof): Bundeskartellamt v. Volkswagen AG and VAG Leasing GmbH (Leasing in the motor vehicles sector - Dealers acting as agents exclusively for the manufacturer's subsidiary primarily engaged in leasing - Interpretation of Article 85 (1) of the EEC Treaty and of Regulation (EEC) No 123/85)

text:
9 . 12 . 95           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 333/1
                                                                 I
                                                           (Information)
                                             COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                       COURT OF JUSTICE
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                 question, or from calling on such dealers to act in that
                                                                     manner .
                      of 24 October 1995
in Case C-70/93 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from the        Commission Regulation (EEC) No 123/85 of 12 December
Bundesgerichtshof): Bayerische Motorenwerke AG v. ALD                1984 on the application of Article 85 (3) of the Treaty to
                  Auto-Leasing D GmbH ( ! )                          certain categories of motor vehicle distribution and
(Selective distribution system — Motor vehicles — Refusal            servicing agreements must be interpreted as meaning that it
to supply — Territorial protection — Interpretation of               does not exempt such an agreement.
Article 85 (1) of the EEC Treaty and Regulation (EEC)
                           No 123/85)                                (') OJ No C 112 , 22 . 4 . 1993 .
                         ( 95/C 333/01 )
                (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                               of 24 October 1995
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                     in Case C-266/93 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
In Case C-70/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177 of        the Bundesgerichtshof): Bundeskartellamt v. Volkswagen
the EC Treaty from the Bundesgerichtshof ( Federal Court of                        AG and VAG Leasing GmbH (*)
Justice ) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending        (Leasing in the motor vehicles sector — Dealers acting as
 before that court between Bayerische Motorenwerke AG                agents exclusively for the manufacturer's subsidiary
and ALD Auto-Leasing D GmbH — on the interpretation of               primarily engaged in leasing — Interpretation of
Article 85 ( 1 ) of the EEC Treaty and Commission                    Article 85 (1) of the EEC Treaty and of Regulation (EEC)
 Regulation ( EEC ) No 123/85 of 12 December 1984 on the                                          No 123/85)
 application of Article 85 ( 3 ) of the Treaty to certain                                       ( 95/C 333/02 )
 categories of motor vehicle distribution and servicing
 agreements ( OJ 1985 L 15 , p. 16 ) — the Court, composed of                       (Language of the case: German)
 G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, C. N. Kakouris, D. A. O.
 Edward, G. Hirsch ( Presidents of Chambers ), G. F.                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
 Mancini , F. A. Schockweiler ( Rapporteur ), J. C. Moitinho                  published in the European Court Reports)
 de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm and
 L. Sevón, Judges; G. Tesauro, Advocate-General; H. A.                In Case C-266/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177
 Rühl , Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a       of the EEC Treaty from the Bundesgerichtshof ( Federal
 judgment on 24 October 1995 , in which it rules :                    Court of Justice ) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
                                                                      pending before that court between Bundeskartellamt and
 Article 85 (1 ) of the EEC Treaty must be interpreted as             ( 1 ) Volkswagen AG and ( 2 ) VAG Leasing GmbH,
 meaning that it precludes a motor vehicle manufacturer               supported by VAG-Händlerbeirat eV — on the
 which sells its vehicles through a selective distribution            interpretation of Article 85 ( 1 ) of the EEC Treaty and
 system from agreeing with its authorized dealers that they           Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 123/85 of 12 December
 are not to deliver vehicles to independent leasing companies         1984 on the application of Article 85 ( 3 ) of the Treaty to
 where, without granting an option to purchase, those                 certain categories of motor vehicle distribution and
 companies make them available to lessees whose residence             servicing agreements ( OJ 1985 L 15 , p. 16 ) — the Court,
 or seat is outside the contract territory of the dealer in           composed of G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, C. N. Kakouris,
 ---pagebreak--- No C 333/2             | EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       9 . 12 , 95
D. A. O. Edward, G. Hirsch ( Presidents of Chambers ), G. F.            Article 13 ( 2 ) ( a ) and Article 39 ( 1 ) and ( 5 ) of Council
Mancini, F. A. Schockweiler ( Rapporteur ), J. C. Moitinho              Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the
de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm and                 application of social security schemes to employed persons,
L. Sevon, Judges ; G. Tesauro, Advocate-General; H. A.                  to self-employed persons and to members of their families
Riihl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a          moving within the Community, as amended and updated by
judgment on 24 October 1995 , in which it rules :                       Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983 ( OJ
                                                                         1983 L 230, p. 6 ), the Court ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of
                                                                        D. A. O. Edward ( Rapporteur ), President of the Chamber,
 1 . Article 85 (1 ) of the EEC Treaty must be interpreted as           J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann, P. Jann and
      meaning that it prohibits an obligation imposed by the            L. Sevon, Judges; A. M. La Pergola, Advocate-General;
      leading manufacturer of motor vehicles in a Member                H. A. Ruhl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has
      State on all its dealers established in that State to develop     given a judgment on 26 October 1995 , in which it rules
                                                                        that:
      activities as agents for leasing transactions exclusively
      for the account of its own leasing company.
                                                                        Article 38 (1 ) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of
2 . Commission Regulation (EEC) No 123/85 of                            14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes
      12 December 1984 on the application of Article 85 (3)             to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to
                                                                        members oftheir families moving within the Community, as
      of the Treaty to certain categories of motor vehicle
                                                                        amended and updated by Council Regulation (EEC)
      distribution and servicing agreements must be
      interpreted as meaning that it does not exempt an
                                                                        No 2001 /83 of 2 June 1 983, is to be interpreted as meaning
                                                                        that, where the applicable legislation of a Member State
      obligation imposed by the leading motor vehicle
                                                                        makes the grant of invalidity benefits subject, inter alia, to
      manufacturer in a Member State on all its dealers
      established in that State to develop activities as agents
                                                                        the condition that at the time of his joining the scheme
                                                                        established by that legislation the worker's state of health
      for leasing transactions exclusively for the account of its
                                                                        must not have been such as to make it foreseeable that
      own leasing company.
                                                                        incapacity for work followed by invalidity would occur in
                                                                        the near future, the competent institution must also take
t 1 ) OJ No C 160, 12 . 6 . 1993 .                                      into account periods of insurance completed by that worker
                                                                        under the legislation of another Member State, as if those
                                                                       periods had been completed under the legislation which it
                                                                       administers.
                                                                        (') OJ No C 59 , 26 . 2 . 1994, p . 6 .
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          ( Fifth Chamber)
                        of 26 October 1995
in Case C-481/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Arrondissementsrechtbank Amsterdam ): R. Moscato v.                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   Bestuur van de Nieuwe Algemene Bedrijfsvereniging ( j )                                       ( Fifth Chamber)
(Social Security — Invalidity — Legislation applicable —                                       of 26 October 1995
       Type A legislation — Pre-existing state of health)               in Case C-482/93 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
                            ( 95/C 333/03 )                             the Arrondissementsrechtbank Amsterdam ): S. E. Klaus v.
                                                                          Bestuur van de Nieuwe Algemene Bedrijfsvereniging (')
                                                                        (Social security — Sickness — Pre-existing state ofhealth —
                  (Language of the case: Dutch)                                      Aggregation of insurance periods)
                                                                                ( 95/C 333/04 )
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
           published in the European Court Reports)                                     (Language of the case: Dutch)
In Case C-481 /93 : reference to the Court under Article 177            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
of the EEC Treaty from the Arrondissementsrechtbank                             published in the European Court Reports)
( District Court ), Amsterdam (Netherlands ), for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between R. Moscato and Bestuur van de Nieuwe                      In Case C-482/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177
Algemene Bedrijfsvereniging — on the interpretation of                  of the EEC Treaty from the Arrondissementsrechtbank


title: Case T-414/07 (Community trade mark — Application for a Community figurative mark representing a hand holding a card with three triangles — Absolute ground for refusal — Absence of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 2 July 2009 — Euro-Information v OHIM (Representing a hand holding a card with three triangles))

text:
               15.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/19

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 2 July 2009 — Euro-Information v OHIM (Representing a hand holding a card with three triangles))
   (Case T-414/07 (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for a Community figurative mark representing a hand holding a card with three triangles - Absolute ground for refusal - Absence of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2009/C 193/28
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Européenne de traitement de l’information (Euro-Information) (Strasbourg, France) (represented by: P. Greffe, M. Chaminade and L. Paudrat, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: O. Montalto and R. Bianchi, Agents)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 September 2007 (Case R 290/2007-1), rejecting the application for registration of a sign representing a hand holding a card with three triangles as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Européenne de traitement de l’information (Euro-Information) to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 22, 26.1.2008.


title: Action brought on 9 June 1998 by Interporc Im- und Export GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-92/98)

text:
C 258/36             EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   15.8.98
               ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT                             1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
          OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                       of 26 June 1998                            2. There is no need to adjudicate on the application to
in Case T-262/97 R: Anthony Goldstein v Commission of                 intervene.
                 the European Communities
    (Application for interim measures Ð Inadmissibility)          3. The applicant is ordered to pay the defendant's costs.
                        (98/C 258/64)                             (1) OJ C 370 of 6.12.1997.
               (Language of the case: English)
In Case T-262/97 R: Anthony Goldstein, residing in
London, represented by Raymond St John Murphy,
                                                                  Action brought on 9 June 1998 by Interporc Im- und
Solicitor, against Commission of the European
                                                                  Export GmbH against the Commission of the European
Communities (Agent: Richard Lyal) Ð application for
                                                                                Communities
interim measures in connection with a decision of the
Commission refusing to adopt interim measures sought by                                  (Case T-92/98)
the applicant Ð the President of the Court of First                                       (98/C 258/66)
Instance made an order on 26 June 1998, the operative
part of which is as follows:
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
                                                                  An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                  Communities was brought before the Court of First
2. The applicant shall pay the costs of the interlocutory         Instance of the European Communities on 9 June 1998 by
     proceedings.                                                 Interporc Im- und Export GmbH, Hamburg (Germany),
                                                                  represented by Georg M. Berrisch, Rechtsanwalt, of
                                                                  Messrs Schön Nolte Finkelnburg & Clemm, 33 Rue PeÁre
                                                                  de Deken, Brussels.
                                                                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                       of 25 May 1998                             Ð annul the contested decision;
in   Case T-267/97: Broome & Wellington Ltd                v
       Commission of the European Communities (1)                 Ð alternatively, annul the contested decision in so far as
                                                                      the applicant has not already received, in the context
(Action for annulment Ð Notice of initiation of an anti-              of the proceedings in Case T-50/96, the documents to
           dumping proceeding Ð Inadmissibility)                      which it has requested access;
                        (98/C 258/65)
                                                                  Ð order the Commission to pay the costs of the present
                                                                      proceedings in any event.
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
In Case T-267/97: Broome & Wellington Ltd, having its
registered office in Manchester (United Kingdom),
represented by Fiona M. Carlin, Barrister, of the Northern        The applicant refers, with regard to the previous history of
Ireland Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at         this matter, to Case T-124/96 Interporc Im- und Export
the offices of Arendt and Medernach, 8-10 Rue Mathias             GmbH v Commission (1). By judgment delivered in that
Hardt, against Commission of the European Communities             case on 6 February 1998 (2), the Court inter alia annulled
(Agents: Viktor Kreuschitz and Nicholas Khan) Ð                   the Commission's decision of 29 May 1996 refusing the
application for the annulment of a notice of initiation of        applicant access to certain documents held by that
an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of                  institution.
unbleached cotton fabrics originating in the People's
Republic of China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Pakistan and          By its claim in the present action, the applicant contests
Turkey, published on 11 July 1997 (OJ C 210 of                    the fresh refusal to grant access to documents held by the
20.7.1996, p. 12) Ð the Court of First Instance (Third            Commission.
Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of: V. Tiili,
President, C. P. BrieÈt, K. Lenaerts, A. Potocki and J. D.
Cooke, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on               In the contested decision, the Secretary-General of the
25 May 1998, the operative part of which is as follows:           Commission classifies the documents requested as falling
 ---pagebreak--- 15.8.98                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 258/37
into the following groups: (1) documents prepared by the             The applicant claims that the Court should:
Member States and by the Argentinian authorities and (2)
Commission documents.                                                Ð declare the action admissible;
As regards the documents in the first of those groups, the           Ð annul the decision of the examining jury in
applicant is recommended to request copies of the                        competition COM/A/17/96 not to include him in the
documents in question direct from the Member States                      list of successful candidates, together with the decision
and from the authorities concerned. According to the                     of the competent Commission authority approving and
Commission, the documents in the second group are the                    ratifying that list, the tacit rejection of administrative
subject of pending legal proceedings (3) and consequently                complaint R/056/98, and all further implementing acts
fall within the exception relating to protection of the                  by the Commission;
public interest, and in particular the proper conduct of
court proceedings, for which express provision is made in
                                                                     Ð order the Commission to pay the applicant BFR
the Code of Conduct.
                                                                         300 000 in respect of non-material injury;
In that regard, the applicant pleads as follows in its
                                                                     Ð order the Commission to pay all the costs.
application:
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
As to point (1):
                                                                     The applicant relies on multiple infringements of the rules
The Commission may not refuse to give access to a
                                                                     of law governing the conduct of competitions for the
document on the ground that its author is not the
                                                                     recruitment of staff of the European Communities which
Commission. Refusal to grant access to the documents
                                                                     are alleged to have occurred during the course of internal
concerned cannot be justified by relying on the
                                                                     competition COM/17/96 for transfer form Grade B to
corresponding provision of the Code of Conduct. Thus the
                                                                     Grade A, in which he was a candidate. According to the
contested decision infringes both Decision 94/90/ECSC,
                                                                     applicant, the infringements in question entail the nullity
EC, Euratom and the Code of Conduct. The applicant
                                                                     of the competition, and also give grounds for a claim for
pleads, in the alternative, that the contested decision
                                                                     compensation. The infringements in question are the
infringes Article 190 of the EC Treaty, since it does not
                                                                     following:
contain an adequate statement of the reasons on which it
is based.
                                                                     Ð Infringement of the principle of equal treatment of
                                                                         candidates
As to point (2):
                                                                         At the outset the applicant alleges a threefold
In the applicant's view, the contested decision is void,
                                                                         infringement of the fundamental requirement of equal
since it infringes Decision 94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom and
                                                                         treatment of candidates in competitions for the
the Code of Conduct. The application is based, in the
                                                                         recruitment of officials.
alternative, on infringement of Article 176 of the EC
Treaty in conjunction with the judgment in Case T-124/96                 (a) Infringement on the grounds of the variable
and infringement of Article 190 of the EC Treaty.                             composition of the examining jury during the oral
                                                                              tests and the stage-by-stage appraisal.
(1) OJ C 318 of 26.10.1996, p. 14.
(2) Not yet published in the European Court Reports.                     (b) Infringement of the principle of equal treatment on
(3) Case T-50/96 Primex Produkte Import und Export and Others
                                                                              linguistic   grounds/discrimination      based    on
    v Commission, currently pending (OJ C 180 of 22.6.1996,
    p. 33).
                                                                              nationality.
                                                                         (c) Infringement on the ground of different treatment
                                                                              of the candidates in regard to the fourth criterion
                                                                              (drafting aptitude).
                                                                     Ð Infringement of the principle of leniency and of the
Action brought on 30 June 1998 by Christos Gogos
                                                                         general rules governing the grading of competitions.
   against the Commission of the European Communities
                         (Case T-95/98)
                                                                     Ð Infringement of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations of
                          (98/C 258/67)                                  Officials.
An action against the Commission of the European                     Ð Infringement of Article 3 of Annex III to the Staff
Communities was brought before the Court of First                        Regulations.
Instance of the European Communities on 30 June 1998
by Christos Gogos, a Grade B5 official with the                      Ð Infringement of the rules governing notice of the
Commission, represented by Professor Chary Tagara, of                    competition.
the Athens Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
at the Chambers of Evelyn Korn, 21 Rue Nassau, L-2213.


title: Case T-155/12: Judgment of the General Court of 23 October 2013 — Schulze v OHIM — GKL (Klassiklotterie) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Application for Community word mark Klassiklotterie — Earlier national word mark NKL-Klassiklotterie — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               7.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 359/10

         Judgment of the General Court of 23 October 2013 — Schulze v OHIM — GKL (Klassiklotterie)
   (Case T-155/12) (1)

   (Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Application for Community word mark Klassiklotterie - Earlier national word mark NKL-Klassiklotterie - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2013/C 359/16
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Hans Gerd Schulze (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: K. Lodigkeit, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intevener before the General Court: GKL Gemeinsame Klassenlotterie der Länder, formerly NKL Nordwestdeutsche Klassenlotterie (Hamburg) (represented by: S. Russlies, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 January 2012 (Case R 600/2011-4) relating to invalidity proceedings between NKL Nordwestdeutsche Klassenlotterie and Mr Hans Gerd Schulze.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Hans Gerd Schulze to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 165, 9.6.2012.


title: Appeal brought on 13 December 1995 by (1) Antillean Rice Mills NC, (2) European Rice Brokers AVV and (3) Guyana Investments AVV against the judgment delivered on 14 September 1995 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-480/93 and T-483/93, between (1) Antillean Rice Mills NV, (2) Trading & Shipping Co. Ter Beek BV, (3) European Rice Brokers AVV, (4) Alesie Curaçao NV and (5) Guyana Investments AVV, on the one hand, and Commission of the European Communities, supported by Council of the European Union, French Republic and Italian Republic, on the other hand (Case C-390/95 P)

text:
No C 46/6               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    17 . 2 . 96
Appeal brought on 13 December 1995 by ( 1 ) Antillean Rice                the case back to the Court of First Instance for
Mills NC, ( 2 ) European Rice Brokers AVV and ( 3 ) Guyana                judgment.
Investments AW against the judgment delivered on
14 September 1995 by the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Joined Cases T-480/93 and
T-483/93 , between ( 1 ) Antillean Rice Mills NV, ( 2 ) Trading
                                                                       Contentions and main arguments
& Shipping Co. Ter Beek BV, ( 3 ) European Rice Brokers
AW, ( 4 ) Alesie Curasao NV and ( 5 ) Guyana Investments
AW, on the one hand, and Commission of the European
Communities, supported by Council of the European                      — Breach and/or misapplication of Part Four and/or
Union, French Republic and Italian Republic, on the other                 Article 190 of the Treaty, and/or of the OCT
                                hand                                      Decision ( 3), and in any event of generally applicable
                         Case C-390/95 P )                                principles of Community law, in what the Court of First
                           ( 96/C 46/ 10                                  Instance considered and decided in paragraphs 90 to 97
                                                                          of the judgment under appeal, and in particular in its
                                                                          decision that the Council is entitled, in implementing
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 14 September                  decisions taken on the basis of the second paragraph of
1995 by the Court of First Instance of the European                       Article 136 of the Treaty, to adopt safeguard clauses
Communities in Joined Cases T-480/93 and T-483/93 ,                       authorizing restrictions on the freedom to import
between ( 1 ) Antillean Rice Mills NV, ( 2 ) Trading &                    agricultural products from the OCT.
Shipping Co . Ter Beek BV, ( 3 ) European Rice Brokers AW,
( 4 ) Alesie Curasao NV and ( 5 ) Guyana Investments AW,
on the one hand, and Commission of the European
Communities, supported by Council of the European                      — Breach and/or misapplication of Part Four and/or
Union, French Republic and Italian Republic, on the other                 Article 190 of the Treaty, and/or of the OCT Decision,
hand, was brought before the Court of Justice of the                      and in any event of generally applicable principles of
European Communities on 13 December 1995 by ( 1 )                         Community law, in what the Court of First Instance
Antillean Rice Mills NC, ( 2 ) European Rice Brokers AW                   considered and decided in paragraphs 119 to 131 of the
and ( 3 ) Guyana Investments AW, represented by P.                        judgment under appeal , and in particular in its decision
                                                                          that the Commission was entitled to find that difficulties
Glazener and W. Knibbeler, fo the Rotterdam Bar, and J.
Pel, of the Amsterdam Bar, with an address for service in                 had arisen which might result in a deterioration in the
Luxembourg at the Chambers of N. Loesch, 11 Rue                           Indica rice growing sector in the Community.
Goethe .
The appellants claim that the Court should :                           — Breach and/or misapplication of Article 109 ( 2 ) of the
                                                                          OCT Decision, and in any event of generally applicable
 1 . Set aside the contested judgment ( 1 ) in so far as the forms        principles of Community law, in what the Court of First
      of order sought by the applicants were not granted in               Instance considered and decided in paragraphs 149, 150
      full;                                                               and 151 of the judgment under appeal, and in particular
                                                                          in its decision that the minimum price in the second
                                                                          decision did not go beyond what was strictly necessary
2 . Grant in full the forms of order already sought by the                within the meaning of Article 109 ( 2 ).
      applicants before the Court of First Instance ( 2 ),
      namely:
      2.1 . Annul in their entirety Commission Decision                — Breach and/or misapplication of Article 190 and/or 215
            93/ 127/EEC of 25 February 1993 introducing                   of the Treaty, and in any event of generally applicable
            safeguard measures in respect of rice originating in          principles of Community law, in what the Court of First
            the    Netherlands     Antilles   and    Commission           Instance considered and decided in paragraphs 41 and
            Decision 93/21 1 /EEC of 13 April 1993 modifying               177 to 186 of the judgment under appeal , and in
            Decision 93/ 127/EEC concerning safeguard                      particular in its decision that in the circumstances of the
            measures in respect of rice originating in the                 present case the Community can only incur liability if a
            Netherlands Antilles;                                          sufficiently flagrant violation of a superior rule of law
                                                                           for the protection of the individual has occurred .
      2.2 . Order the Community to make good the damage
             suffered by the applicants as a result of those
             decisions;                                                — Breach and/or misapplication of Article 190 and/or
                                                                           Article 215 of the Treaty, and in any event of generally
      2.3 . Order the Commission to pay the costs of the                   applicable principles of Community law, in what the
             appeal and of the procedure before the Court of               Court of First Instance considered and decided in
             First Instance ;                                              paragraphs 190 to 194 of the judgment under appeal,
                                                                           and in particular in that it failed to investigate whether
 3 . Give judgment itself in accordance with Article 54 of the             there was any flagrant violation of Community law and
      Statute of the Court of Justice or, in the alternative, refer        furthermore in that in its assessment of the contested
 ---pagebreak--- 17 . 2 . 96              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       No C 46/7
      decisions it wrongly accorded decisive importance to a                   arbitration clause and, if so, what the place of
      measure adopted by the Netherlands Antilles .                            arbitration is according to that clause ?
— Breach and/or misapplication of Article 190 and/or
                                                                           3 . If the answer to Question 1 is that, in order for the court
      Article 215 of the Treaty, and at least of generally
      applicable principles of Community law, in what the                      hearing the interlocutory application to have
      Court of First Instance considered and decided in                        jurisdiction, the relief sought from it must also take
      paragraph 207 of the judgment under appeal, in                           effect, or be capable of taking effect, in the Contracting
                                                                               State concerned, does that mean that the order applied
      particular in drawing from its finding that the damage in
                                                                               for must be capable of enforcement in that State, and is it
      question was in no way unforeseeable the conclusion
                                                                               then necessary for this condition to be fulfilled when the
      that the damage suffered by the applicants did not go
                                                                               interlocutory application is made, or is it sufficient that
      beyond the economic risks inherent in activity in that
      sector .
                                                                               it can be reasonably expected to be fulfilled in the
                                                                               future ?
(') OJ No C 286 , 28 . 10 . 1995 , p . 10 .
( 2 ) OJ No C 171 , 22 . 6 . 1993 , pp . 11 and 12 .                       4 . Does the possibility, provided for in Article 289 et seq.
( 3 ) Council Decision 91 /482/EEC of 25 July 1991 ( OJ 1 991 L 263 ,          of the Netherlands Code of Civil Procedure, of applying
      p. 1 ).                                                                  on grounds of pressing urgency to the President of the
                                                                               Arondissementsrechtbank              ( District  Court )    for
                                                                               immediate anticipatory relief constitute a 'provisional '
                                                                               or 'protective' measure within the meaning of Article 24
                                                                               of the Brussels Convention ?
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der                  5 . Does it make any difference to the answer to Question 4
Nederlanden by judgment of that court of 8 December 1995                       whether substantive proceedings on the main issue are,
in      the    case  of     Van     Uden      Africa   Line   v.   (1)         or may become, pending and, if so, is it material that
Kommanditgesellschaft             in  Firma       Deco-Line,     Peter         arbitration proceedings had started in the same case ?
              Determann KG and ( 2 ) Peter Determann
                           ( Case C-391/95 )
                                                                           6 . Does it make any difference to the answer to Question 4
                              ( 96/C 46/ 11 )                                  whether the interim relief sought is an order requiring
                                                                               performance of a payment obligation, as referred to in
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                         Question 1 ?
European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad der
Nederlanden ( Supreme Court of the Netherlands ) of
                                                                           7. If Question 4 must be answered in the affirmative, and
8 December 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry
on 14 December 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of                  'the courts of another Contracting State have
                                                                               jurisdiction as to the substance of the matter', must
Van Uden Maritime BV, trading as Van Uden Africa Line, v.
 ( 1 ) Kommanditgesellschaft in Firma Deco-Line, Peter                         Article 24, and in particular the reference therein to
                                                                                ' such provisional . . . measures as may be available
Determann KG and ( 2 ) Peter Determann on the following
                                                                               under the law of [a Contracting] State', be interpreted as
questions :
                                                                               meaning that the court hearing the application for
                                                                                interim measures ( automatically ) has jurisdiction if it
 1 . Where an obligation to pay a sum or sums due under a                      has jurisdiction under its national jurisdictional rules,
       contract must be performed in a Contracting State — so                  even where the rules in question are those referred to in
       that, under Article 5(1 ) of the Brussels Convention, the               the second paragraph of Article 3 of the Brussels
       creditor is entitled to sue his defaulting debtor before the             Convention, or is its jurisdiction in the latter case
       courts of that State with a view to obtaining                           conditional on the fulfilment of more specific
       performance, even though the debtor is domiciled in the                 conditions, for example that the interim relief sought
       territory of another Contracting State —, do the courts                  from that court must take effect, or be capable of taking
       of the first-mentioned State ( automatically ) have                      effect, in the Contracting State concerned ?
       jurisdiction also to hear and determine a claim brought
       by the creditor against his debtor in interim proceedings
       for an order requiring the debtor, as immediate                     8 . If the answer to Question 7 must be that, in order for the
       provisional relief, to pay a sum which, in the view of the               court hearing the application for interim relief to have
       court hearing the interlocutory application, is very                     jurisdiction, it is also required that the relief sought from
       probably due to the creditor, or do more specific                        it must take effect, or be capable of taking effect, in the
       conditions apply in relation to the jurisdiction of the                  Contracting State concerned, does that mean that the
       court hearing the interlocutory application, for example                 order applied for must be capable of enforcement in that
       the condition that the relief sought from that court must                State, and is it then necessary for this condition to be
       take effect, or be capable of taking effect, in the                      fulfilled when the application for interim relief is made,
       Contracting State concerned ?                                             or is it sufficient that it can reasonably be expected to be
                                                                                fulfilled in the future ?
 2 . Does it make any difference to the answer to Question 1
       whether the contract between the parties contains an


               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/4

         Designation of the Chamber responsible for cases of the kind referred to in Article 104b of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice
   (2008/C 301/06)
   At its meeting on 30 September 2008, the Court designated the Second Chamber of the Court as the Chamber which, in accordance with Article 9(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, is responsible for cases of the kind referred to in Article 104b of the Rules of Procedure, for the period from 7 October 2008 to 6 October 2009.


title: Case F-128/07: Action brought on 31 October 2007 — Menidiatis v Commission

text:
               12.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 8/32

         Action brought on 31 October 2007 — Menidiatis v Commission
   (Case F-128/07)
   (2008/C 8/56)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Andreas Menidiatis (Sint-Genesius-Rode, Belgium) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the Commission decision of 21 December 2006 rejecting the applicant's candidature for the vacant post of head of representation of the Commission to Greece and appointing another candidate to that post;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of his action, the applicant relies on a number of pleas in law against the decision to reject his candidature for the vacant post of head of representation of the Commission to Greece. First, he pleads that the selection procedure was unlawful and not complied with. Secondly, he pleads that the notice of vacancy was unlawful and not complied with.
   A further plea in law alleges infringement of Article 11a of the Staff Regulations. Moreover, the applicant pleads the unlawfulness of the downgrading of the post of head of representation in Athens and the unlawfulness of the decision of 7 July 2004 concerning the detailed rules for filling head-of-representation posts.
   In addition, the lateness of the publication of the notice of vacancy is relied on along with the failure to state reasons for refusing access to the documents requested by the applicant in his complaint. Finally, the applicant relies on the breach of the rules concerning the rotation of staff occupying ‘sensitive posts’ and submits that there are numerous factors indicating a misuse of powers.


title: Case F-35/08: Action brought on 14 March 2008 — Pachtitis v Commission

text:
               5.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/51

         Action brought on 14 March 2008 — Pachtitis v Commission
   (Case F-35/08)
   (2008/C 171/101)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Dimitrios Pachtitis (Athens, Greece) (represented by: P. Giatagantzidis, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   The subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   Annulment of EPSO's decision not to allow the applicant to take the written tests in competition EPSO/AD/77/06 following the result obtained in the admission tests and annulment of EPSO's decision rejecting the applicant's request relating to, first, a review of the decision not to allow him to take the written tests, and, secondly, a request for some of the competition documents.
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the decisions of the European Personnel Selection Office ESPO/5000 LM-FR/31.05.2007 and MM./dbD(07)27442/06.12.2007, and all related measures;

               —

               order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.


title: Case C-511/11 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 June 2013 — Versalis SpA, formerly Polimeri Europa SpA v European Commission (Appeals — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market in butadiene rubber and styrene-butadiene rubber manufactured by emulsion polymerisation — Fixing price targets, sharing clients by non-aggression agreements and exchanging commercial information — Evidence — Attributability of unlawful conduct — Amount of the fine — Gravity and duration of the infringement — Aggravating circumstance — Repeated infringement)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/12

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 June 2013 — Versalis SpA, formerly Polimeri Europa SpA v European Commission
   (Case C-511/11 P) (1)

   (Appeals - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market in butadiene rubber and styrene-butadiene rubber manufactured by emulsion polymerisation - Fixing price targets, sharing clients by non-aggression agreements and exchanging commercial information - Evidence - Attributability of unlawful conduct - Amount of the fine - Gravity and duration of the infringement - Aggravating circumstance - Repeated infringement)
   2013/C 225/18
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Versalis SpA, formerly Polimeri Europa SpA (represented by: M. Siragusa, F. Moretti and L. Nascimbene, avvocati)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, L. Malferrari and G. Conte)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 13 July 2011 in Case T-59/05 Polimeri Europa v Commission by which that court dismissed the application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 5700 of 29 November 2006 relating to a proceeding under Articles 81 EC and 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.638 — butadiene rubber and emulsion styrene-butadiene rubber) or, in the alternative, the annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on Polimeri Europa SpA — Infringement of the rights of the defence — Imputability of the infringement — Failure to state reasons

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the main appeal and the cross-appeal;

               2.

               Orders Versalis SpA to pay the costs of the main appeal;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs of the cross-appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 340, 19.11.2011.


title: Case C-520/15: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 25 February 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Associazione Italiana delle Unità Dedicate Autonome Private di Day Surgery e dei Centri di Chirurgia Ambulatoriale (Aiudapds) v Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA), Ministero della Salute (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rules of Procedure of the Court — Article 53(2) — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Second paragraph of Article 47 and Article 54 — European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms — Article 6(1) — Extraordinary petition the President of the Italian Republic — Opposition to the petition by a party to the dispute — Modification of that extraordinary petition into judicial proceedings — Implementation of EU law — Absence — Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court of Justice)

text:
               18.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/14

         Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 25 February 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Associazione Italiana delle Unità Dedicate Autonome Private di Day Surgery e dei Centri di Chirurgia Ambulatoriale (Aiudapds) v Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA), Ministero della Salute
   (Case C-520/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Rules of Procedure of the Court - Article 53(2) - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Second paragraph of Article 47 and Article 54 - European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms - Article 6(1) - Extraordinary petition the President of the Italian Republic - Opposition to the petition by a party to the dispute - Modification of that extraordinary petition into judicial proceedings - Implementation of EU law - Absence - Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court of Justice))
   (2016/C 260/18)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato — Italy

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Associazione Italiana delle Unità Dedicate Autonome Private di Day Surgery e dei Centri di Chirurgia Ambulatoriale (Aiudapds)

      Defendant: Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA), Ministero della Salute

      Other party: Roche SpA, Novartis Farma SpA, and Regione Marche

      Re:

   The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly has no jurisdiction to answer the question referred by the Consiglio di Stato (Council of State, Italy) by decision of 15 July 2015 (Case C-520/15).

      (1)  OJ C 398, 30.11.2015.


title: Case C-97/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Vienna (Austria) lodged on 10 March 2009 — Ingrid Schmelz v Finanzamt Waldviertel

text:
               6.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/5

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Vienna (Austria) lodged on 10 March 2009 — Ingrid Schmelz v Finanzamt Waldviertel,
   (Case C-97/09)
   2009/C 129/08
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Vienna

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ingrid Schmelz

      Defendant: Finanzamt Waldviertel

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the wording ‘as well as supplies of goods and services effected by a taxable person who is not established in the territory of the country’ in Article 24(3) and in Article 28i of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 (1) on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, in the version of No 21 of Council Directive 92/111/EEC of 14 December 1992 (2) amending Directive 77/388/EEC and introducing simplification measures with regard to value added tax, and a scheme transposing this provision into national law infringe the Treaty establishing the European Community, in particular the principle of non-discrimination (Article 12 EC), the freedom of establishment (Article 43 EC et seq.), the freedom to provide services (Article 49 EC et seq.), or fundamental rights under Community law (the Community-law principle of equal treatment) because the provision has the effect that Union citizens who are not established in the territory of the relevant country are excluded from the exemption under Article 24(2) of the Sixth Directive (Special scheme for small undertakings), whilst Union citizens who are established in the territory of the relevant country are able to claim this exemption where the relevant Member State grants an exemption for small undertakings in accordance with the Directive?

               2.

               Does the wording ‘supplies of goods or services carried out by a taxable person who is not established in the Member State in which the VAT is due’ in Article 283(1)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 (3) on the common system of value added tax and that of a scheme transposing this provision into national law infringe the Treaty establishing the European Community, in particular the principle of non-discrimination (Article 12 EC), the freedom of establishment (Article 43 EC et seq.), the freedom to provide services (Article 49 EC et seq.), or fundamental rights under Community law (the Community-law principle of equal treatment), because the provision has the effect that Union citizens who are not established in the relevant Member State are excluded from the exemption under Article 282 et seq. of Directive 2006/112/EC (Special scheme for small enterprises), whilst Union citizens who are established in the territory of the relevant country are able to claim this exemption where the relevant Member State grants an exemption for small enterprises in accordance with the Directive?

               3.

               If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative: is the wording ‘as well as supplies of goods and services effected by a taxable person who is not established in the territory of the country’ in Article 24(3) and in Article 28i of the Sixth Directive invalid within the meaning of Article 234(b) EC?

               4.

               If the answer to the second question is in the affirmative: is the wording ‘supplies of goods or services carried out by a taxable person who is not established in the Member State in which the VAT is due’ in Article 283(1)(c) of Directive 2006/112/EC invalid within the meaning of Article 234(b) EC?

               5.

               If the answer to the third question is in the affirmative: should ‘turnover’ within the meaning of Annex XV of the Treaty between the Kingdom of Belgium, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, Ireland, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Portuguese Republic, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Member States of the European Union) and the Kingdom of Norway, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland, the Kingdom of Sweden, concerning the accession of the Kingdom of Norway, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden to the European Union together with the Final Act (The Treaty of Accession), IX. Taxation, (4) (2)(c) and of Article 24 of the Sixth Directive respectively be understood to mean the turnover generated in one year in the particular Member State for which the small undertakings scheme is utilised or the undertaking’s turnover generated in one year throughout the Community?

               6.

               If the answer to the fourth question is in the affirmative: Should ‘annual turnover’ within the meaning of Article 287 of Directive 2006/112/EC be understood to mean the turnover generated in one year in the particular Member State for which the small undertakings scheme is utilised or the undertaking’s turnover generated in one year throughout the Community?

      (1)  OJ L 145, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ L 383, p. 47.

      (3)  OJ L 347, p. 1.

      (4)  OJ 1994 C 241, p. 335.


title: Case C-366/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 8 September 2006 — DNA Verkot Oy

text:
               18.11.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/24

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 8 September 2006 — DNA Verkot Oy
   (Case C-366/06)
   (2006/C 281/38)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   Referring court
   Korkein hallinto-oikeus
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: DNA Verkot Oy

      Other parties: Sonera Mobile Networks Oy, Viestintävirasto
   Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 4(1) on the right of appeal of Directive 2002/21/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) be interpreted in such a way that a telecommunications undertaking must be considered to have a right of appeal against a decision in which the view is taken that a competitor of the telecommunications undertaking concerned does not have significant market power status?

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1 is affirmative, an answer to the following question is requested:
               Does the requirement in Article 4(1) of Framework Directive 2002/21/EC with regard to taking into account the facts of the case and an effective appeal mechanism mean that a national court may examine the facts of the case, make a legal evaluation, and give judgment in the case, without the Commission's decision under Article 7(4) of the Framework Directive and its reasoning in respect of a market analysis restricting the jurisdiction of the national court?

      (1)  OJ L 108, p. 33.


title: Case T-326/05: Action brought on 29 August 2005 — Rath v OHIM

text:
               12.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/27

         Action brought on 29 August 2005 — Rath v OHIM
   (Case T-326/05)
   (2005/C 281/50)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Matthias Rath (Cape Town, South Africa) [representative: S. Ziegler, lawyer, C. Kleiner, lawyer and F. Dehn, lawyer]

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

      Other party(ies) to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: AstraZeneca AB (Södertälje, Sweden)
   Forms of order sought by the claimant(s)

               —

               annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation within the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 18 May 2005;

               —

               order of costs against OHIM.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: AstraZeneca AB

      Community trade mark affected: The word mark ‘VIXACOR’ in respect of goods in Class 5 (Application No 1 739 697).

      Owner of the opposing mark or sign in the opposition proceedings: the claimant.

      Opposing mark or sign: The Community mark ‘Vitacor’ for goods and services in Classes 5, 16 and 41 (No 689 018), the Community mark ‘Vitacor Plus’ for goods and services in Classes 5, 16 and 32 (No 1 668 565) and the German trade mark ‘Vitacor Plus’ for goods in Classes 5, 16 and 31 (No 399 65 690).

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Dismissal of the opposition.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

      Pleas: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 since there is a likelihood of confusion between the mark applied for and the opposing marks.


title: Case T-383/08: Action brought on 11 September 2008 — New Europe v Commission

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/47

         Action brought on 11 September 2008 — New Europe v Commission
   (Case T-383/08)
   (2008/C 301/81)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: New Europe (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A.-M. Alamanou, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment of the Commission decision in the form of a letter dated 2 July 2008 and received by the applicant on the same day, refusing to the latter access to the names of the companies and the individuals cited in the documents disclosed by the Commission; and

               —

               Order that the costs of, and occasioned by these proceedings be borne by the respondent.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By way of the present application, the applicant challenges the Commission decision notified to the latter by letter dated 2 July 2008 by which the Commission refused to disclose the names of the companies and of the individuals involved in the so-called ‘Eximo’ case which are cited in the documents disclosed to the applicant by the Commission in reply to its initial application.
   The applicant seeks to annul the contested decision on the basis of the following grounds:
   First, according to the applicant, the contested decision is vitiated by a manifest error of law in so far as the Commission wrongly interpreted and relied on the exceptions provided in Article 4(1)(b), 4(2) first indent of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1) without carrying out an assessment of fact or setting out the reasons for its refusal. In addition, the applicant submits that the Commission made an error of appreciation of the facts in finding that the commercial interests of the companies concerned and the privacy and the integrity of the individuals involved would have been seriously undermined should their names be disclosed. Furthermore, the applicant contends that, by opting for an extensive interpretation of the term ‘protection of commercial interests’ and ‘protection of privacy and integrity of the individual’, the Commission violated the principle of the widest possible access to documents as set out in Article 1(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.
   Second, the applicant submits that the contested decision infringed Article 4(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 in so far as the Commission failed to grant the applicant full access to a document which was already publicly available.
   Third, the applicant submits that the Commission violated the obligation to state reasons in accordance with Article 253 EC, by failing to inform the applicant on the grounds on which it based its decision and by simply referring to the exceptions set out in Article 4(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.

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


title: Case C-113/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 8 March 2013 — ASL n. 5 ‘Spezzino’ and Others v San Lorenzo Società Cooperativa Sociale, Croce Verde Cogema Cooperativa Sociale Onlus

text:
               1.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/20

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 8 March 2013 — ASL n. 5 ‘Spezzino’ and Others v San Lorenzo Società Cooperativa Sociale, Croce Verde Cogema Cooperativa Sociale Onlus
   (Case C-113/13)
   2013/C 156/31
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: ASL n. 5 «Spezzino», A.N.P.A.S. Associazione Nazionale Pubblica Assistenza — Comitato Regionale Liguria, Regione Liguria

      Respondents: San Lorenzo Società Cooperativa Sociale, Croce Verde Cogema Cooperativa Sociale Onlus

      Questions referred

               1.

               Do Articles 49 TFEU, 56 TFEU, 105 TFEU and 106 TFEU preclude a provision of national law under which ambulance services are awarded, on a preferential basis, to voluntary associations, the Italian Red Cross and other authorised public institutions or bodies, albeit pursuant to agreements which provide only for reimbursement of expenditure that is actually incurred?

               2.

               Does European Union law on public tendering — in the case under examination concerning excluded contracts and the general principles of free competition, non-discrimination, transparency and proportionality — preclude national legislation which permits the direct awarding of ambulance services on the ground that a framework contract such as that contested in this case, which provides for the reimbursement also of fixed and ongoing costs, must be classified as having a pecuniary interest?


title: Case C-568/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Mercantil No 3 de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 9 December 2014  — Ismael Fernández Oliva v Caixabank, S.A.

text:
               9.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/34

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Mercantil No 3 de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 9 December 2014 — Ismael Fernández Oliva v Caixabank, S.A.
   (Case C-568/14)
   (2015/C 046/40)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado Mercantil No 3 de Barcelona

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ismael Fernández Oliva

      Defendant: Caixabank, S.A.

      Questions referred

               1)

               Does Article 43 of the Spanish Law on Civil Procedure, which precludes the court proposing to the parties a possible stay of civil proceedings when another court or tribunal has referred a question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling, not constitute a clear limitation of Article 7 of Directive 93/13/EEC (1) with regard to the Member States’ duty to ensure that, in the interests of consumers and of competitors, adequate and effective means exist to prevent the continued use of unfair terms in contracts concluded with consumers by sellers or suppliers?

               2)

               Does Article 721.2 of the LEC, which precludes the court adopting or proposing of its own motion the adoption of precautionary measures in individual actions in which it is claimed that a general condition is void because unfair, not constitute a clear limitation of Article 7 of Directive 93/13/EEC with regard to the Member States’ duty to ensure that, in the interests of consumers and of competitors, adequate and effective means exist to prevent the continued use of unfair terms in contracts concluded with consumers by sellers or suppliers?

               3)

               Ought not any precautionary measures that might be adopted, either of the court’s own motion or at the request of one or other of the parties, in proceedings in which an individual action is brought, to have effect until final judgment shall have been given either in the individual action or in a collective action that could interfere with the bringing of individual actions, in order to ensure the adequate and effective means provided for in Article 7 of the Directive?

      (1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts. OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.