title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 16 September 1997 in Case C-139/96: Commission of the European Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a State to fulfil obligations - Directives 93/48/EEC, 93/49/EEC and 93/61/EEC - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

text:
1 . 11 . 97              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 331 /3
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (First Chamber)                                                       ( Sixth Chamber)
                       of 16 September 1997                                                 of 16 September 1997
in Case C-362/95 P: Blackspur DIY Ltd, a company                              in Case C-139/96: Commission of the European
incorporated under the law of England and Wales, Steven                       Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany ( l )
Kellar, J. M. A. Glancy and Ronald Cohen v. Council of
the European Union and Commission of the European                       (Failure of a State to fulfil obligations — Directives 93/
                          Communities (')                               48/EEC,     93/49/EEC and 93/61/EEC — Failure to
                                                                                transpose within the period prescribed)
(Appeal — Non-contractual liability of the Community —
Causal link — Anti-dumping duties — Commission                                                    ( 97/C 331/06 )
Regulation (EEC) No 3052/88 and Council Regulation
                         (EEC) No 725/89)
                             ( 97/C 331/05 )                                            (Language of the case: German)
                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-362/95 P, Blackspur DIY Ltd, a company
incorporated under the law of England and Wales, with its
registered office at Unsworth, Bury (United Kingdom ),                  In Case C-139/96: Commission of the European
Steven Kellar, J. M. A. Glancy and Ronald Cohen residing                Communities (Agent: Klaus Dieter Borchardt) v. Federal
in Manchester (United Kingdom), represented by K. P. E.                 Republic of Germany (Agents : Ernst Röder, Bernd Kloke
Lasok QC, instructed by C. Khan, Solicitor, with an                     and Sabine Maass ) — application for a declaration that,
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of M.                 by failing to take within the prescribed period the
Dennewald, 12 Avenue de la Porte Neuve, appeal against                  measures necessary to comply with Commission Directive
the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the                      93/48/EEC of 23 June 1993 setting out the schedule
European Communities ( First Chamber, Extended                          indicating the conditions to be met by fruit plant
Composition ) in Case T-168/94 Blackspur and Others v.                  propagating material and fruit plants intended for fruit
Council and Commission [ 1995] ECR 11-2627, seeking to                  production, pursuant to Council Directive 92/34/EEC (2),
have that judgment set aside and the case remitted to the               Commission Directive 93/49/EEC of 23 June 1993 setting
Court of First Instance, the other parties to the                       out the schedule indicating the conditions to be met by
proceedings being: Council of the European Union                        ornamental plant propagating material and ornamental
(Agents: Y. Crétien, assisted by H.-J. Rabe and M.                      plants pursuant to Council Directive 91/682/EEC ( 3 ) and
Berrisch and Commission of the European Communities                     Commission Directive 93/61 /EEC of 2 July 1993 setting
(Agent: N. Khan, assisted by H.-J. Rabe and M. Berrisch,                out the schedules indicating the conditions to be met by
— the Court ( First Chamber) composed of: L. Sevón,                     vegetable propagating and planting material, other than
President of the Chamber, D. A. O. Edward and M.                        seed pursuant to Council Directive 92/33/EEC (4), the
Wathelet (Rapporteur ), Judges; G. Tesauro, Advocate                    Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its
General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, gave a judgment on                  obligations under the EC Treaty and those directives —
 16 September 1997, in which it:                                        the Court ( Sixth Chamber), composed of: G. F. Mancini,
                                                                        President of the Chamber, J. L. Murray, C. N. Kakouris
                                                                        ( Rapporteur), P. J. G. Kapteyn and H. Ragnemalm,
                                                                        Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R.
 1 . dismisses the appeal;                                              Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 September
                                                                        1997, in which it:
2 . orders Blackspur DIY Ltd, Steven Kellar, J. M. A.
      Glancy and Ronald Cohen to bear their own costs and               1 . declares that, by failing to take within the prescribed
      to pay those of the Council and the Commission.                        period the measures necessary to comply with
 (') OJ C 16, 20 . 1 . 1996 .                                                — Commission Directive 93/48/EEC of 23 June 1993
                                                                                setting out the schedule indicating the conditions
                                                                                to be met by fruit plant propagating material and
                                                                                fruit plants intended for fruit production, pursuant
                                                                                to Council Directive 92/34/EEC,
 ---pagebreak--- C 331 /4                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                          1 . 11 . 97
     — Commission Directive 93/49/EEC of 23 June 1993                   Ragnemalm and R. Schintgen, Judges; N. Fennelly,
         setting out the schedule indicating the conditions             Advocate General; H. A. Riihl, Principal Administrator,
         to be met by ornamental plant propagating                      for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 September
         material and ornamental plants pursuant to                     1997, in which it has ruled:
         Council Directive 91 /682/EEC and
                                                                        On a proper construction, Article 9 (2) (e), third indent,
     — Commission Directive 93/61 /EEC of 2 July 1993                   of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May
         setting out the schedules indicating the conditions            1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member
         to be met by vegetable propagating and planting                States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of
         material, other than seed pursuant to Council                  value added tax: uniform basis of assessment does not
         Directive 92/33/EEC,
                                                                        refer to the services of a member of an arbitration
                                                                        tribunal.
     the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to comply
     with its obligations under the first subparagraph of               (') OJ C 197, 6 . 7. 1996 .
     Article 10 (1 ) of Directive 93/48/EEC, the first                  ( 2 ) OJ L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p . 1 .
     subparagraph of Article 8 (1 ) of Directive 93/49/EEC
     and the first subparagraph of Article 7 (1 ) of Directive
     93/61 /EEC.
2 . orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the
     costs .                                                                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
(') OJ C 197, 6 . 7. 1996 .
(2) OJ L 250, 7.  10 . 1993 , p . 1 .                                                             of 17 September 1997
(3) OJ L 250, 7.  10 . 1993 , p . 9 .
(4) OJ L 250 , 7. 10 . 1993 , p . 19 .                                  in Case C-322/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                        the Pretura Circondariale di Roma): Emanuele Iurlaro v.
                                                                              Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale (INPS) (')
                                                                        (Regulations (EEC) Nos 1408/71 and 574/72 — Invalidity
                                                                        benefits — Acquisition of entitlement to benefit —
                                                                        Reference period — Taking into account of periods of
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                 unemployment in another Member State)
                          ( Sixth Chamber)                                                            ( 97/C 331 /08 )
                       of 16 September 1997
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
in Case C-145/96 ( reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Finanzgericht Rheinland-Pfalz, Neustadt an der
  Weinstrasse): Bernd von Hoffmann v. Finanzamt Trier (')                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
(Sixth VAT Directive — Interpretation of Article 9 (2) (e),                         published in the European Court Reports)
third indent — Services of an arbitrator — Place where
                       services are supplied)                           In Case C-322/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                            ( 97/C 331 /07 )                            of the EC Treaty by the Pretura Circondariale di Roma for
                                                                        a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before
                                                                        that      court   between        Emanuele      Iurlaro and    Istituto
                (Language of the case: German)                          Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale (INPS ), on the
                                                                        interpretation of Article 9a of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/
                                                                        71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                        social security schemes to employed persons, to self
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                        employed persons and to members of their families
                                                                        moving within the Community (2 ), as amended and
In Case C-145/96 : reference to the Court under Article 177             updated by Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2001 /83 of
of the EC Treaty from the Finanzgericht Rheinland-Pfalz                 2 June 1993 ( 3 ) and subsequently amended by Council
( Financial Court, Rhineland-Palatinate ), Neustadt an der              Regulation ( EEC ) No 2332/89 of 18 July 1989 (4 ), and of
Weinstrasse ( Germany), for a preliminary ruling in the                 Article 15 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 574/72 of the Council
proceedings pending before that court between Bernd von                 of 21 March 1972 laying down the procedure for
Hoffmann and Finanzamt Trier — on the interpretation of                 implementing Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 ( 5 ), as
Article 9 ( 2 ) ( e ), third indent, of the Sixth Council               amended and updated by Regulation No 2001/83 , — the
Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the                              Court ( Fifth Chamber) composed of: J. C. Moitinho de
harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating                 Almeida, ( Rapporteur), L. Sevon, D. A. O. Edward, P.
to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax:                   Jann and M. Wathelet, Judges; Advocate General; P. Leger,
uniform basis of assessment ( 2 ) — the Court ( Sixth                   H. A. Riihl, Principal Administrator, gave a judgment on
Chamber), composed of: G. F. Mancini, President of the                   17 December 1997, the operative part of which is as
Chamber, C. N. Kakouris ( Rapporteur), G. Hirsch, H.                     follows :


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 18 November 2002 in Case T-190/99 DEP: Sniace SA v Commission of the European Communities (Taxation of costs)

text:
22.2.2003               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                              C 44/29
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                        ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 18 November 2002
                      of 4 November 2002
                                                                            in Case T-190/99 DEP: Sniace SA v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
in Case T-90/99: Salzgitter AG v Commission of the                                                    (Taxation of costs)
                    European Communities ( 1)
                                                                                (2003/C 44/57)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
(ECSC — State aid — Decision to initiate the procedure
provided for in Article 6(5) of Decision 2496/96/ECSC —
                      No need to adjudicate)
                                                                            In Case T-190/99 DEP: Sniace SA, established in Madrid,
                                                                            represented by J.L. Baró Fuentes, M.A. Gómez de Liaño y
                                                                            Botella and F. Rodriguez Carretero, Lawyers, against Com-
                          (2003/C 44/56)                                    mission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Rozet and
                                                                            J.L. Buendia Sierra) — application for taxation of the costs to
                                                                            be paid by the defendant to the applicant following the order
                                                                            of the President of the Fifth Chamber, Enlarged Composition,
                   (Language of the case: German)                           of the Court of First Instance of 4 April 2001 in Case T-190/
                                                                            99 Sniace v Commission — the Court of First Instance (Fifth
                                                                            Chamber), composed of M.R. García-Valdecasas, President,
                                                                            and P. Lindh. R.M. Moura Ramos, J.D. Cooke and H. Legal,
                                                                            Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 18 November
                                                                            2002, in which it:
In Case T-90/99: Salzgitter AG, established in Salzgitter                   Fixes the total costs to be paid by the Commission to the applicant in
(Germany), represented by J. Sedemund, lawyer, with an                      Case T-199/99 at EUR 14 300.
address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of
the European Communities (Agents: D. Triantafyllou and
P. Nemitz) — application for the annulment of Commission                    (1 ) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999.
Decision SG (99) D/1542 of 3 March 1999 to initiate the
procedure provided for under Article 6(5) of Commission
Decision No 2496/96/ECSC of 18 December 1996 establishing
Community rules for State aid to the steel industry (OJ 1996
L 338, p. 42) with regard to aid under the German Zonal
Border Development Areas Act to Salzgitter AG, Preussag
Stahl AG and iron and steel subsidiaries of the ‘SAG — Stahl                       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
und Technologie’ Group (OJ 1999 C 113, p. 9) — the Court
of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition),                                          of 27 November 2002
composed of V. Tiili, President, J. Pirrung, P. Mengozzi,
A.W.H. Meij and M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made
an order on 4 November 2002, the operative part of which is                 in Case T-291/01: Dessauer Versorgungs- und Verkehrsge-
as follows:                                                                 sellschaft mbH and Others v Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities ( 1)
                                                                            (Actions for failure to act — Action devoid of purpose — No
1.    There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application.                    need to give judgment — Payment of costs)
                                                                                (2003/C 44/58)
2.    Each of the parties will bear its own costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
( 1) OJ C 174 of 19.6.1999.
                                                                            In Case T-291/01: Dessauer Versorgungs- und Verkehrsge-
                                                                            sellschaft mbH, a company established in Dessau, Germany,
                                                                            Neubrandenburger Stadtwerke GmbH, established in Neu-
                                                                            brandenburg, Germany, Stadtwerke Tübingen GmbH, estab-
                                                                            lished in Tübingen, Germany, Stadtwerke Uelzen GmbH,


title: Case C-348/10: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 November 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts — Republic of Latvia) — Norma-A SIA, Dekom SIA v Latgales plānošanas reģions, successor to the rights of Ludzas novada dome (Public procurement — Directive 2004/17/EC — Article 1(3)(b) — Directive 92/13/EEC — Article 2d(1)(b) — Concept of ‘service concession’ — Provision of public bus services — Right to operate the services and compensation of the service provider for losses — Risk associated with operation of the service limited by national law and the contract — Appeal procedures in the field of public contracts — Direct applicability of Article 2d(1)(b) of Directive 92/13/EEC to contracts concluded before the expiry of the time-limit for the transposition of Directive 2007/66/ECcopy keywords without brackets)

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/13

      Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 November 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts — Republic of Latvia) — Norma-A SIA, Dekom SIA v Latgales plānošanas reģions, successor to the rights of Ludzas novada dome
      (Case C-348/10) (1)

      (Public procurement - Directive 2004/17/EC - Article 1(3)(b) - Directive 92/13/EEC - Article 2d(1)(b) - Concept of ‘service concession’ - Provision of public bus services - Right to operate the services and compensation of the service provider for losses - Risk associated with operation of the service limited by national law and the contract - Appeal procedures in the field of public contracts - Direct applicability of Article 2d(1)(b) of Directive 92/13/EEC to contracts concluded before the expiry of the time-limit for the transposition of Directive 2007/66/ECcopy keywords without brackets)
      (2012/C 25/20)
      Language of the case: Latvian

         Referring court

      Augstākās tiesas Senāts

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Norma-A SIA, Dekom SIA

         Defendant: Latgales plānošanas reģions, successor to the rights of Ludzas novada dome

         Re:

      Reference for a preliminary ruling — Augstākās tiesas Senāts — Interpretation of Article 1(3)(b) of Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 1) and Article 2f(1)(b) of Council Directive 92/13/EEC of 25 February 1992 coordinating the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of Community rules on the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors (OJ 1992 L 76, p. 14), as amended by Directive 2007/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007 amending Council Directives 89/665/EEC and 92/13/EEC with regard to improving the effectiveness of review procedures concerning the award of public contracts (OJ 2007 L 335, p. 31) — Notion of service concession — Contract granting the right to provide public bus services, where the consideration consists in the right to operate the services and the contracting authority compensates the service provider for losses arising as a result of the provision of services, and national legislation and that contract limit the risk associated with operation of the service — Appeal procedures in the field of public contracts — Action for annulment of the concession contract — Direct applicability in Latvia of Article 2f(1)(b) of Directive 92/13/EEC to public contracts concluded before the deadline for transposing Directive 2007/66/EC had expired

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors must be interpreted as meaning that a contract by which a contracting party, pursuant to the rules of public law and the terms of the contract which govern the provision of the services in question, does not bear a significant share of the risk run by the contracting authority is to be regarded as a ‘service contract’ within the meaning of Article 1(2)(d) of that directive. It is for the national court to assess whether the transaction at issue in the main proceedings must be regarded as a service concession or a public service contract by taking account of all the characteristics of that transaction.

                  2.

                  Article 2d(1)(b) of Council Directive 92/13/EEC of 25 February 1992 coordinating the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of Community rules on the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors, as amended by Directive 2007/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007, does not apply to public contracts concluded before the expiry of the time-limit for transposition of Directive 2007/66.

         (1)  OJ C 246, 11.09.2010.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 October 1999 in Case T-123/97: Salomon SA v Commission of the European Communities (Decision authorising State aid for restructuring - Starting point for the time-limit for bringing an action against a third party - Requirements for the compatibility of the aid)

text:
4.12.1999               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 352/33
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                        of 6 October 1999                                                         of 20 October 1999
                                                                          in Case T-171/97: Swedish Match Philippines Inc. v
in Case T-123/97: Salomon SA v Commission of the                                         Council of the European Union (1)
                    European Communities (1)
                                                                          (Protection against dumping — Imposition of duty on
(Decision authorising State aid for restructuring — Starting              imports of pocket lighters from the Philippines — Causal
point for the time-limit for bringing an action against a                 connection between the extremely limited quantity of exports
third party — Requirements for the compatibility of the aid)                    and the existence of injury to Community industry)
                                                                                (1999/C 352/59)
                          (1999/C 352/58)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          In Case T-171/97 Swedish Match Philippines Inc., established
                                                                          in Manila, the Philippines, represented by Francisco Miguel
In Case T-123/97: Salomon SA, established at Pringy (France),             Rodero López, of the Madrid Bar, with an address for service
represented by Loraine Donnedieu de Vabres and Jean-Pierre                in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Lucy Dupong, 14a Rue des
Jouyet, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in                  Bains v Council of the European Union (Agents: Ramon
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-rue,                   Torrent, Antonio Tanca, Hans-Jürgen Rabe and Georg M.
against Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                   Berrisch) supported by Commission of the European Com-
Gérard Rozet and Ami Barav), supported by the Republic of                 munities (Agents: Viktor Kreuschitz and Nicholas Khan) —
Austria (Agent: Christine Stix-Hackl) and by HTM Sport-                   application for partial annulment of Council Regulation (EC)
und Freizeitgeräte AG, established at Schwechat (Austria),                No 423/97 of 3 March 1997 amending Regulation (EEC)
represented by Wolfgang Knapp, of the Brussels and Frankfurt              No 3433/91 in respect of imports originating in Thailand
Bars, and Till Müller-Ibold, of the Frankfurt Bar, with an                and imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt               gas-fuelled, non-refillable pocket flint lighters originating in
and Medernach, 8 to 10 Rue Mathias Hardt — application for                Thailand, the Philippines and Mexico (OJ 1997 L 65, p. 1), as
the annulment of Commission Decision 97/81/EC of 30 July                  amended by Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1508/97
1996 concerning aid granted by the Austrian Government to                 of 28 July 1997 (OJ 1997 L 204, p. 7) — the Court (First
the undertaking Head Tyrolia Mares in the form of injections              Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of: B. Vesterdorf,
of capital (OJ 1997 L 25, p. 26) — the Court of First Instance            President, C.W. Bellamy, J. Pirrung, A.W.H. Meij and M. Vila-
(Second Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of                       ras, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
A. Potocki, President, and K. Lenaerts, C.W. Bellamy, J. Azizi            has given a judgment on 20 October 1999, in which it:
and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator,
for the Registrar; has given a judgment on 6 October 1999, in
which it:                                                                 1. Dismisses the application;
1. Dismisses the application;                                             2. Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and four fifths of the
                                                                               costs incurred by the Council;
2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs incurred by the Commission
     and by the intervener Head Tyrolia Mares;                            3. Orders the Council to bear one fifth of its own costs;
3. Orders the Republic of Austria to bear its own costs.                  4. Orders the intervener to bear its own costs.
(1) OJ C 199 of 28.6.1997.                                                (1) OJ C 252 of 16.8.1997.


title: Case C-384/15 P: Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 January 2016 — Skype Ultd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Sky plc, formerly British Sky Broadcasting Group plc, Sky IP International Ltd (Appeal — Community trade mark — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               18.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 136/5

         Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 January 2016 — Skype Ultd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Sky plc, formerly British Sky Broadcasting Group plc, Sky IP International Ltd
   (Case C-384/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Community trade mark - No need to adjudicate))
   (2016/C 136/08)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Skype Ultd (represented by: A. Carboni and M. Browne, Solicitors)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: P. Bullock, acting as Agent), Sky plc, formerly British Sky Broadcasting Group plc, Sky IP International Ltd (represented by: D. Rose and J. Curry, Solicitors)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to rule on the appeal.

               2.

               Skype Ultd shall pay the costs of the present proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 354, 26.10.2015.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 12 December 1996 in Joined Cases T-177/94 and T-377/94: Henk Altmann and Others and Margaret Casson and Others v. Commission of the European Communities (JET Joint Undertaking - Persons claiming the status of members of the temporary staff)

text:
22 . 2 . 97          [ EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 54/ 17
                                                    COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                      of 11 December 1996                                                  of 12 December 1996
                                                                     in Joined Cases T-177/94 and T-377/94 : Henk Altmann
in Case T-70/94 : Comafrica SpA and Dole Fresh Fruit                 and Others and Margaret Casson and Others v.
Europe Ltd & Co. v. Commission of the European                               Commission of the European Communities (')
                         Communities (')
                                                                     (JET Joint Undertaking — Persons claiming the status of
(Common organization of the market — Bananas —                                       members of the temporary staff)
Action for annulment — Admissibility — Legality of                                              ( 97/C 54/25 )
          reduction coefficient — Action for damages)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                           ( 971C 54/24 )
                                                                     In Joined Cases T-177/94, Henk Altmann, residing at
                                                                     Wantage, Oxfordshire , United Kingdom, and 56 other
                 (Language of the case: English)                     applicants, represented by Kenneth Parker QC and Rhodri
                                                                     Thompson , Barrister, of the Bar of England and Wales,
                                                                     having an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                     Chambers of Messrs Elvinger and Hoss, 15 Cote d'Eich ,
In Case T-70/94 : Comafrica SpA, established in Genes                against Commission of the European Communities ( Agent:
( Italy ), and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe Ltd & Co .,                   Hans Gerald Crossland ), supported by Council of the
established in Hamburg ( Germany ), represented by                   European Union ( Agents : Diego Canga Fano and Jan-Peter
Bernard O'Connor, Solicitor, with an address for service in          Hix, and initially Yves Crétien ), and T-377/94 , Margaret
Luxembourg at the offices of Stanbrook and Hooper at                 Casson , residing at Chilton, Oxfordshire, United
the Chambers of Arsène Kronshagen , 12 Boulevard de la               Kingdom, and 13 other applicants, represented by
Foire v. Commission of the European Communities                      Kenneth Parker QC and Rhodri Thompson, Barrister, of
( Agents : Eugenio de March , Xavier Lewis and John                  the Bar of England and Wales, having an address for
Handoll ), supported by United Kingdom of Great Britain              service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Messrs
and Northern Ireland, ( Agents : initially Lucinda Hudson            Elvinger and Hoss, 15 Cote d'Eich, against Commission of
and then by John E. Collins, Lindsey Nicoll and David                the European Communities ( Agents : Hans Gerald
Anderson ) — application for annulment of Article 1 of               Crossland and Julian Currall ), supported by Council of
Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 3190/93 of 19 November               the European Union ( Agents : Diego Canga Fano and Jan
1993 fixing the uniform reduction coefficient for                    Peter Hix , and initially Yves Crétien ) — applications
determining the quantities of bananas to be allocated to             primarily for annulment of the Commission 's decisions
each operator in categories A and B in the context of the            refusing to appoint the applicants as members of its
tariff quota 1994 , on the one hand, and for compensation            temporary staff and for reparation of the damage suffered
for damage caused to the applicants by the allegedly                 — the Court of First Instance ( Second Chamber ),
unlawful decisions fixing reduction coefficients in 1993             composed of H. Kirschner, President, C. W. Bellamy and
and      1994 — the Court of First Instance            ( Fourth      A. Kalogeropoulos, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal
Chamber ), composed of: K. Lenaerts, President, P. Lindh             Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on
and J. D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio-Gonzalez,                        12 December 1996, in which it:
Administrator, gave a judgment on 11 December 1996 ,
the operative part of which is as follows :                          1 . Takes formal note of the withdrawal from the
                                                                         proceedings of Mr D. Hurford, 26th applicant in Case
                                                                          T-177/94, and removes Case T-177/94 from the
                                                                          register in so far as he is concerned.
 1 . The application is dismissed.
                                                                     2 . Annuls the Commission 's decisions, dated 14 January
                                                                         and 16 September 1994 respectively, not to recruit the
                                                                          other applicants to posts on the temporary staff of the
2 . The applicants are ordered to pay the costs.                          Community.
                                                                     3 . Dismisses the remainder of the applications.
3 . The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
      Ireland is ordered to bear its own costs .                     4 . Orders the defendant to hear its own costs and to pay
                                                                          those of the applicants, with the exception of those of
                                                                          Mr D. Hurford, and Mr D. Hurford and the
                                                                          intervener each to hear their own costs.
 O OJ No C 103 , 11 . 4 . 1994 .
                                                                     (') OJ No C 188 , 9 . 7. 1994 .


title: Case T-132/12: Action brought on 23 March 2012 — Scooters India v OHIM — Brandconcern (LAMBRETTA)

text:
               9.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/24

         Action brought on 23 March 2012 — Scooters India v OHIM — Brandconcern (LAMBRETTA)
   (Case T-132/12)
   2012/C 165/42
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Scooters India Ltd (Sarojini Nagar, India) (represented by: B. Brandreth, Barrister)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Brandconcern BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the part of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 January 2012 in case R 2308/2010-1, in which the applicant’s appeal against the revocation of the mark in respect of its registration for goods in class 6 and 7 was dismissed; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the applicant its costs incurred before the Board of Appeal and the General Court of the European Union.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for revocation has been sought: The word mark ‘LAMBRETTA’, for goods in classes 6, 7 and 28 — Community trade mark registration No 1618982

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Party applying for revocation of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Grounds for the application for revocation: The party grounded its request pursuant to Article 51(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Revoked the CTM registration

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: It is submitted that the Board of Appeal erred in three respects in its assessment of the evidence under Article 51(1)(c). Had the Board of Appeal correctly applied the authorities in Case T-415/09 Vallis v New Yorker and/or La Mer Technology Inc v Laboratoires Goemar SA (Case C-259/02) and/or reviewed the evidence it would have held that there was genuine use of goods in classes 6 and 7 with the consent of SIL.


title: Case C-106/03 P: Appeal brought on 27 February 2003 by fax, confirmed by original lodged on 7 March 2003, by Védial SA against the judgment delivered on 12 December 2002 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-110/01 between Védial SA and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), the other party being France Distribution

text:
C 146/16                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                      21.6.2003
2.    Order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.              Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
                                                                           Firenze by order of that Court of 3 February 2003 in the
                                                                                criminal proceedings against Maria Pupino
                                                                                (Case C-105/03)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (2003/C 146/27)
—     Provisions designed to transpose Article 6(3) of the
      directive are to be evaluated in terms of whether they
      require an assessment of the implications in the case of
      all projects likely to have a significant effect on special
                                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      areas of conservation. Whether a particular effect may be
      significant cannot be decided solely by reference to                 European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Firenze
      the project, but only by taking into consideration the               (District Court, Florence) — Office of the Magistrate in charge
                                                                           of preliminary enquiries — of 3 February 2003, received at
      conservation aims of each individual area of conservation
      which may be affected and the nature and extent of the               the Court Registry on 5 March 2003, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                           in the criminal proceedings against Maria Pupino on the
      habitats and species present in each individual area.
      However, the definition of ‘projects’ contained in Para-             following question:
      graph 10(1)(11)(b) and (c) of the Bundesnaturschutzge-
      setz (Federal Law on Nature Conservation) does not take
      into account areas of conservation. Even if theoretical              Are Articles 2, 3 and 8 of Council Framework Decision 220
      evidence is produced to show that, despite the restrictions          of 15 March 2001 on the standing of victims in criminal
      contained in the definition, all conceivable projects likely         proceedings to be interpreted as precluding national legislation
      to have a significant effect on special areas of conservation        such as that in Articles 392(1a) and 398(5a) of the Italian
      are in fact covered, there would still be no guarantee that          Code of Criminal Procedure, which do not provide that, in
      projects with atypical effects of, in principle, a less              respect of offences other than sexual offences or those with a
      apparent nature would be covered if they were likely to              sexual background, the testimony of witnesses who are minors
      be significant in an actual individual case. In particular,          under 16 may be heard at the stage of the preliminary
      small habitats containing unusual species may react much             enquiries, in a Special Inquiry (‘incidente probatorio’) and
      more sensitively to influences than may be anticipated               under special arrangements, for example for the recording of
      by provisions concerning projects, which standardise                 testimony using audiovisual and sound recording equipment.
      categories.
—     It is contrary to Article 6(3) and (4) of the directive for
      regard not to be had to pollution by noxious substances
      outside a (not clearly defined) area where the effects of a
      project are felt, which is the position under Paragraph 36
      of the Bundesnaturschutzgesetz.
                                                                           Appeal brought on 27 February 2003 by fax, confirmed
                                                                           by original lodged on 7 March 2003, by Védial SA against
—     Restricting the protection of sites where animals nest,              the judgment delivered on 12 December 2002 by the
      breed, live or find refuge to cases where there are                  Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
      deliberate effects (Paragraph 43(4) of the Bundesnatur-              European Communities in Case T-110/01 between Védial
      schutzgesetz) is not consistent with Article 12(1)(d) of             SA and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
      the directive, the clear wording of which indicates that             Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), the other
      intention is not necessary in the context of the prohibition                       party being France Distribution
      concerning deterioration or destruction of breeding sites
      or resting places.
                                                                                (Case C-106/03 P)
—     Paragraph 43(4) of the Bundesnaturschutzgesetz also
      provides for derogations from the provisions concerning                                      (2003/C 146/28)
      the protection of species in favour of intervention or
      measures already authorised, without taking into account
      the fact that at the time of authorisation it may not yet
      have been known that a protected species is affected.                An appeal against the judgment delivered on 12 December
                                                                           2002 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                           the European Communities in Case T-110/01 between Védial
                                                                           SA and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
( 1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.
                                                                           (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), the other party being
                                                                           France Distribution, was brought before the Court of Justice of
                                                                           the European Communities on 27 February 2003 by fax,
                                                                           confirmed by original lodged on 7 March 2003, by Védial SA.
 ---pagebreak--- 21.6.2003               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 146/17
The appellant claims that the Court should:                                       In addition, the Court of First Instance did not apply the
                                                                                interdependence rule clearly. The Court of First Instance
                                                                                did not raise the point that the claimed low degree of
—     set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of                    similarity between the marks was not offset by the high
      12 December 2002 in Case T-110/01 and accordingly                           degree of similarity between the goods and the strongly
                                                                                distinctive character of the applicant’s trade mark.
      —     acting pursuant to Article 54 of the Statute of the
                                                                                Finally, the Court of First Instance infringed the concept
            Court of Justice, give final judgment in the matter,
            granting the forms of order sought by the applicant                   of ‘likelihood of confusion’ by limiting the public con-
            before the Court of First Instance;                                   cerned to the ‘targeted public’, the latter comprising only
                                                                                consumers likely to acquire the marked goods, whereas
                                                                                the public concerned consists of all persons likely to be
      —     in the alternative: refer the case back to the Court of               confronted with the mark, which is very different.
            First Instance for judgment;
                                                                            (1 ) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
—     in any case: order OHIM to pay the costs.                                  Community trade mark (OJ L 11, 14.1.1994, p. 1).
Pleas in law and main arguments
—     Plea alleging breach of the ‘principle of party disposition’
                                                                            Appeal brought on 27 February 2003 by fax, confirmed
      The ‘principle of party disposition’ is a general principle           by the original lodged on 7 March 2003, by The Procter
      of law under which the parties exercise, in principle, sole           & Gamble Company against the judgment delivered on
      control over legal proceedings. It is they who delimit the            12 December 2002 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court
      subject-matter of the dispute. The Court of First Instance            of First Instance of the European Communities in Case
      certainly acted in breach of the ‘principle of party                  T-63/01 between The Procter & Gamble Company and
      disposition’ by holding, contrary to the agreement of the             the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
      parties on this point, that there was no similarity between                         (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
      the conflicting trade marks.
                                                                                (Case C-107/03 P)
—     Plea alleging breach of the right to a fair hearing
      The Court of First Instance also acted in breach of the                                         (2003/C 146/29)
      right to a fair hearing since it undermined the applicant’s
      legitimate expectation as to the delimitation of the
      dispute.
                                                                            An appeal against the judgment delivered on 12 December
—     Plea alleging infringements of the concept of ‘likelihood             2002 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
      of confusion’ and the concept of ‘public’ within the                  the European Communities in Case T-63/01 between The
      meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 (1)                 Procter & Gamble Company and the Office for Harmonisation
                                                                            in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
      The contested judgment rules out the likelihood of                    was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
      confusion on the ground that the public ‘will not                     Communities on 27 February 2003 by fax, confirmed by the
      attribute the same commercial origin to the goods in                  original lodged on 7 March 2003, by The Procter & Gamble
      question’. However, a likelihood of confusion also exists             Company.
      where the public may believe that the goods come from
      undertakings which are connected only economi-
      cally. Moreover, the Court of First Instance rejected any             The appellant claims that the Court should:
      likelihood of confusion on the ground that ‘even though
      there is identity and similarity between the goods covered
      by the conflicting marks, the visual, aural and conceptual            —     set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
      differences between the signs’ mean that there is no                        12 December 2002 in Case T-63/01 and, in consequence
      likelihood of confusion, whereas the question is not                        thereof,
      whether there are differences between the conflicting
      marks, but whether there is identity or similarity between                  —     primarily: apply Article 54 of the Statute of the
      them and whether, considered as a whole with the                                  Court of Justice and give final judgment in the
      identity or similarity of the goods, the degrees of those                         matter, upholding the form of order sought by the
      similarities are such that there is a likelihood of confusion.                    appellant before the Court of First Instance;


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 19 October 1995 in Case C-19/93 P: Rendo NV and Others v. Commission of the European Communities (Competition - Agreement impeding imports and exports of electricity - Commission decision - Partial abstention from ruling on the compatibility of the agreement with Article 85 (1) of the Treaty)

text:
25 . 11 . 95          EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 315/7
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     restrictions applicable during the period prior to the
                       ( Sixth Chamber)                                  entry into force of the Electricity Law and declared the
                                                                         application inadmissible on that point.
                     of 19 October 1995
in Case C-19/93 P: Rendo NV and Others v. Commission of
                the European Communities (')                        2 . The remainder of the appeal is dismissed.
 (Competition — Agreement impeding imports and exports
of electricity — Commission decision — Partial abstention
from ruling on the compatibility of the agreement with              3 . The case is referred back to the Court of First
                 Article 85 (1) of the Treaty)                           Instance.
                         ( 95/C 315/12 )
                                                                    4 . The parties are ordered to bear their own costs in these
                                                                         proceedings.
                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                    (') O J No C 71 , 13 . 3 . 1993 .
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
In Case C-19/93 P : Rendo NV, a company incorporated                                          ( Sixth Chamber )
under Netherlands law, established in Hoogeveen
                                                                                of 19 October 1995
( Netherlands ), Centraal Overijsselse Nutsbedrijven NV, a
company incorporated under Netherlands law, established             in Case C-l 11/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
in Almelo ( Netherlands ), Regionaal Energiebedrijf Salland         the Tribunale Civile e Penale di Milano ): non-contentious
NV, a company incorporated under Netherlands law,                   proceedings brought before that court by Job Centre Coop,
established in Deventer ( Netherlands ), all represented by                                          arl ( 1 )
T. R. Ottervanger, of the Rotterdam Bar, with an address            (Natonal legislation prohibiting private undertakings from
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of S.                    providing job placement for workers — Lack ofjurisdiction
Oostvogels, 1 3 Rue Aldringen, appeal against the judgment                                       of the Court)
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
( First Chamber ) of 18 November 1992 in Case T- 16/91                                          ( 95/C 315/ 13 )
Rendo and Others v. Commission ( 1992 ) ECR 11-2417 ),
seeking to have that judgment set aside , the other party to
the proceedings being: Commission of the European                                   (Language of the case: Italian)
Communities (Agent: B. J. Drijber ), supported by
Samenwerkende elektriciteits-produktiebedrijven NV, a
company incorporated under Netherlands law, established             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
in Arnhem ( Netherlands ), represented by M. van Empel and                   published in the European Court Reports)
O. W. Brouwer, of the Amsterdam Bar, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of M. Loesch, 8 Rue
Zithe — the Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of: C. N.             In Case C-l 11 /94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
Kakouris, President of the Chamber, F. A. Schockweiler              of the EC Treaty from the Tribunale Civile e Penale di
( Rapporteur ), P. J. G. Kapteyn , J. L. Murray and H.              Milano ( Civil and Criminal District Court, Milan ), Italy, for
Ragnemalm, Judges; Advocate-General : G. Tesauro;                   a preliminary ruling in the non-contentious proceedings
Registrar : L. Hewlett, Administrator, has given a judgment         ( giurisdizione volontaria ) brought before that court by Job
on 19 October 1995 , in which the operative part is as              Centre Coop , arl — on the interpretation of Articles 48 , 55 ,
follows :                                                           59 , 60, 66 , 86 and 90 of the EC Treaty — the Court ( Sixth
                                                                    Chamber ), composed of: G. F. Mancini , acting as President
                                                                    of the Chamber, F. A. Schockweiler, P. J. G. Kapteyn
                                                                    ( Rapporteur ), J. L. Murray and H. Ragnemalm, Judges;
                                                                    M. B. Elmer, Advocate-General ; L. Hewlett, Administrator,
1 . The judgment of the Court of First Instance of                  for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 19 October 1995 , the
      1 8 November 1 992 in Case T- 16/91 is set aside in so far    operative part of which is as follows :
     as it held that Commission Decision 91 /50/EEC of
      16 Janury 1991 relating to a proceeding under Article 85
     of the EEC Treaty (IV/32.732 — IJsselcentrale (IJC)            The Court of Justice of the European Communities has no
     and Others) had had no legal effect as regards the import      jurisdiction to answer the questions raised by the Tribunale


title: Case C-101/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Göta Hovrätten by decision of that court of 23 February 2001 in the case of Bodil Lindqvist v Kammaråklagaren (Public Prosecutor), Jönköpning

text:
21.4.2001              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 118/19
      particular Article 6(3) thereof, together with Council                   about fifteen people with links between the pages which
      Directive 84/450/EEC of 10 September 1984 (4) on the                     make it possible to search by first name be considered to
      approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative                constitute ‘the processing otherwise than by automatic
      provisions of the Member States concerning misleading                    means of personal data which form part of a filing system
      advertising (OJ 1984 L 250, p. 17) (hereinafter ‘Directive               or are intended to form part of a filing system’ within the
      84/450’), in particular Articles 4 and 7 thereof, preclude               meaning of Article 3(1)?
      national legislation which, in connection with the market-
      ing of cosmetic products, makes it an offence to refer to
      medical opinions, by the use, in particular, of the                If the answer to either of those questions is yes, the Hovrätten
      description ‘clinically tested’ or ‘dermatologically tested’ ,     also asks the following questions:
      if erroneous ideas as to the characteristics and functioning
      of the cosmetic product could be engendered in the mind
                                                                         (3) Can the act of loading information of the type described
      of the consumer, as a result of a lack of information as to
                                                                               about work colleagues onto a private home page which
      the content and outcome of the opinion in question?
                                                                               is none the less accessible to anyone who knows its
                                                                               address be regarded as outside the scope of the directive
(2) Do Articles 28 and 30 EC, Directive 76/768, in particular                  on the ground that it is covered by one of the exceptions
      Article 6(3) thereof, and Directive 84/450, in particular                in Article 3(2)?
      Articles 4 and 7 thereof, preclude national legislation
      which permits information coming within the terms of
      Question 1 to be used only after prior authorisation by            (4) Is information on a home page stating that a named
      the competent Federal Minister?                                          colleague has injured her foot and is on half-time on
                                                                               medical grounds personal data concerning health which,
                                                                               according to Article 8(1), may not be processed?
( 1) OJ 1976 L 262, p. 169.
( 2) OJ 1988 L 382, p. 46.                                               (5) The directive prohibits the transfer of personal data to
( 3) OJ 1993 L 151, p. 32.                                                     third countries in certain cases. If a person in Sweden
( 4) OJ 1984 L 250 p. 17.                                                      uses a computer to load personal data onto a home page
                                                                               stored on a server in Sweden — with the result that
                                                                               personal data becomes accessible to people in third
                                                                               countries — does that constitute a transfer of data to a
                                                                               third country within the meaning of the directive? Would
                                                                               the answer be the same even if, as far as known, no one
                                                                               from the third country had in fact accessed the data or if
                                                                               the server in question is actually physically in a third
                                                                               country?
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Göta Hovrätt-
en by decision of that court of 23 February 2001 in                      (6) Can the provisions of the directive, in a case such as the
the case of Bodil Lindqvist v Kammaråklagaren (Public                          above, be regarded as bringing about a restriction which
                    Prosecutor), Jönköpning                                    conflicts with the general principles of freedom of
                                                                               expression or other freedoms and rights, which are
                         (Case C-101/01)                                       applicable within the EU and are enshrined in inter alia
                                                                               Article 10 of the European Convention on the Protection
                                                                               of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms?
                         (2001/C 118/31)
                                                                         Finally, the Hovrätten asks the following question:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a decision of the Göta Hovrätten
of 23 February 2001, which was received at the Court Registry            (7) Can a Member State, as regards the issues raised in the
on 1 March 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Bodil                 above questions, provide more extensive protection for
Lindqvist v Kammaråklagaren, Jönköpning, on the following                      personal data or give it a wider scope than the directive,
questions:                                                                     even if none of the circumstances described in Article 13
                                                                               exists?
(1) Is the mention of a person — by name or with name and
      telephone number — on an Internet home page an action
      which falls within the scope of the directive? (1) Does it
                                                                         (1) Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
      constitute ‘the processing of personal data wholly or
                                                                             on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of
      partly by automatic means’ to list on a self-made Internet             personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ 1995
      home page a number of persons with comments and                        L 281, p. 31).
      statements about their jobs and hobbies etc?
(2) If the answer to the first question is no, can the act of
      setting up on an Internet home page separate pages for


title: Action brought on 19 September 1997 by the European Office of Consumer Unions (BEUC) against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-256/97)

text:
10. 1. 98              EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 7/21
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                arguments are essentially the same in both applications,
                                                                   whose purpose, even though they relate to two different
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those           administrative procedures, is to determine whether or not
relied on in Case T-16/97 (1).                                     the Commission is incorrect in not regarding consumers'
                                                                   associations as interested parties in an anti-dumping
                                                                   proceeding concerning products not commonly sold at
(1) OJ C 74, 8. 3. 1997, p. 27.
                                                                   retail level.
Action brought on 19 September 1997 by the European
                                                                   Action brought on 20 October 1997 by GueÂrin
Office of Consumer Unions (BEUC) against the
                                                                   Automobiles against the Commission of the European
         Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                Communities
                        (Case T-256/97)
                                                                                (Case T-275/97)
                           (98/C 7/61)
                                                                                (98/C 7/62)
                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                   An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                   Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 19 September
                                                                   Instance on 20 October 1997 by GueÂrin Automobiles,
1997 by the European Office of Consumer Unions
                                                                   represented      by    Xavier     LemeÂe,   court-appointed
(BEUC), represented by Bernard O'Connor, Member of
                                                                   administrator, instructing Jean Claude Fourgoux, of the
the Law Society of Ireland, and assisted by Bonifacio
                                                                   Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
Garcia Porras, member of the Colegio de Abogados de
                                                                   the Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz, 4, rue BeÂatrix de
Salamanca, of O'Connor and Company, with an address
                                                                   Bourbon.
for service in Luxembourg at the offices of ArseÁne
Kronshagen, 2, rue Marie AdeÂlaïde.
                                                                   The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance
                                                                   should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                   Ð annul the Commission decision of 25 April 1997,
Ð declare void, pursuant to Articles 173 and 174 of the
     EC Treaty, the decision of the Commission, addressed
     to the applicant and set out in the letter of 18 July         Ð formally take note that Mr LemeÂe reserves the right to
     1997 (see Annex I), refusing to regard the applicant as           bring an action for compensation pursuant to
     an interested party' in relation to all aspects of an            Article 215 of the Treaty,
     anti-dumping proceeding, opened by the Commission
     on the 11 July 1997, concerning imports of                    Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
     unbleached cotton fabrics, originating in the People's
     Republic of China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Pakistan
     and Turkey, and refusing the applicant's request for          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     transmission of the complaint and for access to the
     non-confidential files and information made available         The applicant contests the definitive rejection of the
     by all parties in that proceeding,                            complaint which it lodged against the company Nissan
                                                                   France on the basis of Article 85 of the EC Treaty and
Ð declare void, pursuant to Articles 173 and 174 of the            Commission Regulation (EEC) No 123/85 (1) concerning
     EC Treaty, the decision contained in the same letter, in      the imposition by that company of concession conditions
     so far as that decision refuses to allow the applicant        which the applicant considers incompatible with that
     and other consumer organizations to have access to            Regulation.
     the non-confidential information made available in an
     anti-dumping proceeding dealing with products not             The applicant states that, in its letter rejecting the
     commonly sold at retail level,                                complaint, the defendant relies essentially on the more
                                                                   protective provisions of the new Regulation, Regulation
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.                           (EC) No 1475/95 (2), which requires Nissan, in its
                                                                   relations with its concessionaires, to make changes as
                                                                   regards the future both to the contract at issue and in its
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                conduct, eliminating any infringements relating to the
                                                                   past'. The applicant emphasizes in that regard that its
The applicant in the present case is the same                      interest relates only to a situation prior to the entry into
representative consumers' organization as in Case T-84/97          force of that Regulation and that the Commission was
BEUC v. Commission. The pleas in law and main                      asked to deal only with that situation.


title: Case C-445/02 P: Appeal brought on 9 December 2002 by Glaverbel against the judgment delivered on 9 October 2002 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in case T-36/01 between Glaverbel and the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trademarks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
C 31/12                  EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                          8.2.2003
       duces into the Community legal order, be construed as               Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Monomeles
       meaning that the terms ‘biocidal products’ and ‘low-risk            Protodikio Athinon by order of that Court of 11 July
       biocidal product’ refer solely to products whose biocidal           2002 in the case of Fixtures Marketing Limited against
       function depends on active substances added to those                    Organismos Prognostikon Agonon Podosphairou AE
       products by chemical or biological means through pro-
       cesses expressly designed to add such substances in order                                    (Case C-444/02)
       to confer on those products a biocidal function?
                                                                                (2003/C 31/17)
2.     Must Article 2(1)(c) of Directive 98/8/EC, in the light of
       the general rules which that directive introduces into the
       Community legal order, be construed as meaning that the             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
       term ‘basic substance’ refers to substances which are not           European Communities by order of the Monomeles Protodikio
       added to a product in order to enable it to perform an              Athinon (Single-Judge Court of First Instance, Athens) of
       intended biocidal function but such a biocidal function is          11 July 2002, received at the Court Registry on 9 December
       performed in addition to the function normally perfor-              2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Fixtures Marketing
       med by that product during its use (as an example: liquid           Limited against Organismos Prognostikon Agonon Podosphai-
       for a dishwasher which, by virtue of the addition of a              rou AE (Football-match-results-forecasting Undertaking) on
       substance designed to improve its detergent function,               the interpretation of Article 7 of Directive 96/9/EC and the sui
       may also have a bactericidal function)?                             generis right thereunder in connection with the following
                                                                           issues:
3.     May a piece of red cedar wood, simply by virtue of the              1.    the concept of databases and the scope of Directive 96/
       fact that it is marketed as being ‘anti-moth’, be classifiable            9/EC ( 1) and in particular Article 7 thereof (sui generis
       as a ‘biocidal product’, as a ‘low-risk biocidal product’ or              right).
       as a ‘basic substance’ within the meaning of Directive 98/
       8/EC, bearing in mind that: (a) the wood in question has            2.    Further to determination of the scope of the directive,
       in no way been treated chemically or biologically; (b) the                whether the lists of football fixtures enjoy protection as
       substance on which the effects attributed to the wood                     databases over which there is a sui generis right in favour
       may depend is naturally present in the product; (c) the                   of the maker and with what consequences.
       product is substantially marketed as found in its natural
       state?                                                              3.    How exactly the database right is infringed and whether
                                                                                it is protected in regard to rearrangement of the contents
                                                                                of the database.
4.     Must Article 2(1)(c) of Directive 98/8/EC be construed as
       meaning that it is only if a ‘basic substance’ is included
       on the list referred to in Annex IB that that substance             (1 ) OJ L 77 of 27.3.1996, p. 20.
       may be exempted from the authorisation and registration
       provided for the marketing in the Member States of
       products covered by Article 2, with such inclusion on the
       list referred to in Annex IB thus acquiring constitutive
       effectiveness for all purposes?
                                                                           Appeal brought on 9 December 2002 by Glaverbel against
5.     Must Article 4 of Directive 98/8/EC, by reference to                the judgment delivered on 9 October 2002 by the Second
       Articles 28 EC and 30 EC, be construed as meaning that              Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
       a product such as that described in Question 3, placed              Communities in case T-36/01 (1) between Glaverbel and
       lawfully on the market in a Member State without any                the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market
       need for authorisation or registration in that Member                              (Trademarks and Designs) (OHIM)
       State, may be made subject to authorisation or regis-
       tration in another Member State in which it is sub-                                         (Case C-445/02 P)
       sequently marketed by reason of the fact that the product
       in question is not included on the list referred to in
       Annex IB to Directive 98/8/EC?                                                                (2003/C 31/18)
                                                                           An appeal against the judgment delivered on 9 October 2002
( 1) Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council       by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
     of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products       European Communities in case T-36/01 between Glaverbel
     on the market (OJ L 123 of 24.04.1998, p. 1).                         and the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market
                                                                           (Trademarks and Designs) (OHIM), was brought before the
                                                                           Court of Justice of the European Communities on 9 December
                                                                           2002 by Glaverbel, represented by Susanne Möbus, Attorney
                                                                           at Law, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
 ---pagebreak--- 8.2.2003                EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 31/13
The Appellant claims that the Court should:                              findings that the relevant consumer is not used to regarding
                                                                         designs applied to the surface of glass sheets as an indication
                                                                         of the trade origin of the goods, and that the design is not
1.    annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance of               immediately recognisable as an indication of the trade origin
      9 October 2002 in Case T-36/01 Glaverbel v. Office for             of the goods but as a functional component.
      Harmonization (glass pattern) in so far as it found that
      the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonization
      in the Internal Market (Trademarks and Designs) did not
                                                                         (1 ) OJ C 118, 21.04.2001, p. 41.
      infringe Article 7 (1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC)
                                                                         (2 ) OJ L 011, 14.01.1994, p. 1.
      No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community
      trademark ( 2) in adopting its decision of 30 November
      2000 (Case R 137/2000-1).
2.    annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of
      the Office of Harmonization in the Internal Market
      (Trademarks and Designs) of 30 November 2000 (Case R
      137/2000-1) in so far as it refused the application
      No. 811 281 for registration of a design applied to a
      surface of the goods (glass pattern) as a trademark on the
      basis of Article 7 (1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94;                  Action brought on 11 December 2002 by the Hellenic
                                                                         Republic against the Commission of the European Com-
                                                                                munities
3.    orders the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
      Market (Trademarks and Designs) to pay the costs both
      at first instance and on appeal.                                                           (Case C-448/02)
                                                                                (2003/C 31/19)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
By annulling the contested decision for the infringement of a            Communities on 11 December 2002 by the Hellenic Republic,
right to a hearing with respect to the arguments based on                represented by Ioannis Khalkias and Georgios Kanellopoulos,
Article 7 (3) of Regulation No 40/94 and in doing so on that             Members of the State Legal Service, with an address for service
ground alone, the contested judgment allowed that part of the            in Luxembourg at the Greek Embassy, 117 Val Sainte-Croix.
decision relating to the registrability of the Community
trademark application in respect of Article 7 (1)(b) of the
Regulation to stand.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         —     annul or, in the alternative, amend Commission Decision
The Appellant maintains that in order for the OHIM to                          C(2002) 3771 of 14 October 2002 amending Decision
take the necessary measures to comply with the contested                       1999/187/EC ( 1), relating to the exclusion from Com-
judgment, the OHIM could therefore simply confine itself to                    munity funding of certain expenditure incurred by the
considering the arguments submitted by the Appellant in                        Member States within the framework of the Guarantee
respect of Article 7 (3) without altering its interpretation of                Section of the EAGGF (2), so far as concerns financial
Article 7 (1)(b) of the Regulation. Accordingly the Appellant                  corrections to the detriment of the Hellenic Republic in
submits that it has an interest in appealing the contested                     the arable crops sector for the financial year 1995.
judgment.
The Appellant submits that the CFI was wrong in finding that             Grounds for annulment and main arguments
the sign in question is devoid of any distinctive character for
the purposes of Article 7 (1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 and
that that finding is based on a wrong assessment and                     —     The differences are not actual; incorrect interpretation
interpretation of the aforementioned article. The Appellant                    and application of Article 5(2)(c) of Regulation (EEC)
also maintains that the Board of Appeal was not correct in its                 No 729/70.


title: Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 July 2000 in Case C-8/99 P: Carmen Gómez de Enterría y Sanchez v European Parliament (Appeal manifestly inadmissible in part and manifestly ill-founded in part)

text:
25.11.2000              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 335/23
Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 amending Directive                   1.    The appeal is dismissed.
75/442/EEC on waste (OJ L 78, p. 32) and Directive 94/62/EC
of the European Parliament and the Council of 20 December                  2.    Fratelli Murri SpA is ordered to pay the costs.
1994 on packaging and packaging waste (OJ L 365, p. 10) —
the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President,
J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, D.A.O. Edward, L. Sevón (Rappor-                (1) OJ C 20 of 22.1.2000.
teur) and R. Schintgen, Presidents of Chambers, P.J.G. Kapteyn,
C. Gulmann, A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann,
H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet, V. Skouris, and F. Macken, Judg-
es; F.G. Jacob, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made
an order on 28 June 2000, in which it has ruled:
The request for a preliminary ruling submitted by the Cour d’Appel,
Paris, by decision received at the Court on 27 March 2000, is                                  ORDER OF THE COURT
inadmissible.
                                                                                (Second Chamber)
( 1) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000.
                                                                                of 13 July 2000
                                                                           in Case C-8/99 P: Carmen Gómez de Enterrı́a y Sanchez v
                                                                                European Parliament (1)
                                                                           (Appeal manifestly inadmissible in part and manifestly ill-
                    ORDER OF THE COURT                                                               founded in part)
                        (Fourth Chamber)                                                             (2000/C 335/43)
                           of 6 July 2000                                                      (Language of the case: French)
in Case C-399/99 P: Fratelli Murri SpA v Commission of
                 the European Communities (1)                              (Provisional translation: the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
(Appeals — Non-contractual liability — Expiry of limitation
                               period)                                     In Case C-8/99 P: Carmen Gómez de Enterrı́a y Sanchez,
                                                                           a former official of the European Parliament, residing in
                          (2000/C 335/42)                                  Luxembourg (Luxembourg), represented by E. Boigelot, of the
                                                                           Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                           Chambers of L. Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Reinsheim — appeal
                   (Language of the case: German)                          against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities (First Chamber) of 17 November 1998
                                                                           in Case T-131/97 Gómez de Enterrı́a y Sanchez v Parliament
                                                                           [1998] ECR-SC I-A-613 and II-1855, seeking to have that
(Provisional translation: the definitive translation will be published     judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings being:
                   in the European Court Reports)                          European Parliament (Agents: M. Peter and J. Sant’Anna,
                                                                           assisted by D. Waelbroeck) — the Court (Second Chamber),
In Case C-399/99 P: Fratelli Murri SpA, established in Rome,               composed of R. Schintgen, President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch
represented by K.-G. von Luschka, Rechtsanwalt Chieming,                   (Rapporteur) and V. Skouris, Judges, N. Fennelly, Advocate
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of               General: R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 13 July
C. Medernach, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt — appeal against the                  2000, in which it:
judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities, First Chamber, of 4 August 1999 in Case                       1.    Dismisses the appeal;
T-106/98 Fratelli Muni v Commission (not yet published)
seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other party to                2.    Orders Mrs Carmen Gómez de Enterrı́a y Sanchez to pay the
the proceedings being the Commission of the European                             costs.
Communities (Agents: B. Brandtner and B. Martenczuk) —
the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of D.A.O. Edward,
Presidents of the Chamber, P.J.G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur) and                 (1) OJ C 71, 13.3.1999.
A. La Pergola, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass,
Registrar, made an order on 6 July 2000, the operative part of
which is as follows:


title: Case C-501/08 P: Order of the Court of 24 September 2009 — Município de Gondomar v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Cohesion Fund — Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 — Cancellation of Community financial assistance — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Measures of direct and individual concern to the applicant)

text:
               16.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 11/10

         Order of the Court of 24 September 2009 — Município de Gondomar v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-501/08 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Cohesion Fund - Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 - Cancellation of Community financial assistance - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Measures of direct and individual concern to the applicant)
   2010/C 11/17
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Appellant: Município de Gondomar (represented by: J.L. da Cruz Vilaça and L. Pinto Monteiro, advogados)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Guerra e Andrade and B. Conte, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 10 September 2008 in Case T-324/06 Município de Gondomar v Commission in which the Court of First Instance declared inadmissible the action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 3782 of 16 August 2006 on the cancellation of the financial assistance granted by the Cohesion Fund for Project No 95/10/61/017 — Redevelopment of Greater Oporto/South — Gondomar subsystem

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               The Município de Gondomar shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 19, 24.01.2009.