title: Case T-320/01: Action brought on 17 December 2001 by Pietro del Vaglio against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 56/18               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      2.3.2002
Decision of the Board of      rescission of the decision of the          —     order the defendant to pay damages provisionally asses-
Appeal:                       Opposition Division and referral                 sed, on a fair and equitable basis, in the sum of
                              of the case back to the Opposition               10 000 euros and to pay interest at 7 % per annum on
                              Division as regards the goods and                the balance of the pension due from 24 September 2000
                              services not covered by the                      to 1 April 2001;
                              decision of the Board of Appeal.
                                                                         —     order the defendant to pay all the costs.
Grounds of claim:             —     infringement         of    Ar-
                                    ticle 8(1)(b) of Regulation
                                    (EC) No 40/94 (1);                   Pleas in law and main arguments
                              —     no risk of confusion;
                                                                         The pleas in law and arguments advanced are broadly similar
                              —     no similarity between the
                                                                         to those put forward in Case T-124/01 Del Vaglio v Com-
                                    allegedly conflicting services.
                                                                         mission (OJ 2001 C 227, p. 31).
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
    Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
                                                                         Action brought on 15 December 2001 by Internationaler
                                                                         Hilfsfonds e.V. against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
                                                                                (Case T-321/01)
                                                                                (2002/C 56/33)
Action brought on 17 December 2001 by Pietro del Vaglio
against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                         (Case T-320/01)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                          (2002/C 56/32)                                 European Communities on 15 December 2001 by Interna-
                                                                         tionaler Hilfsfonds e.V., established at Rosbach (Federal Repub-
                                                                         lic of Germany), represented by Hans Kaltenecker, lawyer.
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         —     annul the decision of the European Commission of
                                                                               16 October 2001 by which it refused the applicant’s
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                      1996 and 1997 requests for co-financing;
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 17 December 2001 by Pietro del
                                                                         —     order the Commission, pursuant to the principle of
Vaglio, residing in London, represented by Georges Vander-
                                                                               reimbursement, to pay the costs, including those resulting
sanden and Laure Levi, lawyers.
                                                                               from the procedures before the Ombudsman which the
                                                                               applicant was constrained to incur in order to obtain its
                                                                               entitlement.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—    annul the defendant’s decision of 6 September 2001                  Pleas in law and main arguments
     rejecting the applicant’s complaint concerning the appli-
     cation to his pension of the weighting for the United
     Kingdom;                                                            The applicant is challenging the Commission’s decision of
                                                                         16 October 2001 rejecting three requests for co-financing
                                                                         which it had made under budget heading B7-6000, concerning
—    order the defendant to apply the weighting for the United           the co-financing of actions with European non-governmental
     Kingdom with retroactive effect from 24 September                   development organisations (NGDOs) in fields relating to
     2000;                                                               developing countries.


title: Case T-479/07: Action brought on 17 December 2007 — Nuova Agricast v Commission

text:
               8.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 64/43

         Action brought on 17 December 2007 — Nuova Agricast v Commission
   (Case T-479/07)
   (2008/C 64/70)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Nuova Agricast srl (Cerignola, Italy) (represented by: A. Calabrese, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul Decision SG/E/3/MIB/mbp D(2007) 8992 of the Commission of 17 October 2007;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-417/07 Lodato Gennaro & Co.


title: Case T-757/15: Order of the General Court of 3 May 2017 — Facebook v EUIPO — Brand IP Licensing (lovebook)

text:
               17.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 231/53

         Order of the General Court of 3 May 2017 — Facebook v EUIPO — Brand IP Licensing (lovebook)
   (Case T-757/15) (1)

   (2017/C 231/69)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 68, 22.2.2016.


title: Action brought on 19 December 1997 by Trasporti e Spedizioni Internazionali Cossutta SNC against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-602/97)

text:
C 72/18               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    7.3.98
Action brought on 19 December 1997 by Ditta Pietro                  Clarich and Alessandro Giadrossi, of the Bars of Florence
Stagno against the Commission of the European                       and Trieste, with an address for service at the latter's
                          Communities                               Chambers at 17 Via XXX Ottobre, Trieste.
                       (Case T-600/97)
                          (98/C 72/40)                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                    Ð annul Commission Decision C(97) 2735 final of
                                                                         30 July 1997,
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 19 December                 Ð in the alternative, annul Article 5 of that Decision
1997 by Ditta Pietro Stagno, represented by Marcello                     inasmuch as it requires the Member State to recover
Clarich and Alessandro Giadrossi, of the Bars of Florence                the aid (granted as from 1 July 1990), together with
and Trieste, with an address for service at the latter's                 the interest accrued as from the date on which the aid
Chambers at 17 Via XXX Ottobre, Trieste.                                 was paid,
The applicant claims that the Court should:                         Ð in any event, order the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities to pay the costs.
Ð annul Commission Decision C(97) 2735 final of
     30 July 1997,
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Ð in the alternative, annul Article 5 of that Decision
     inasmuch as it requires the Member State to recover            The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
     the aid (granted as from 1 July 1990), together with           relied upon in Case T-288/97 Regione Friuli-Venezia
     the interest accrued as from the date on which the aid         Giulia v. Commission (1).
     was paid,
                                                                    (1) OJ C 7, 10.1.1998, p. 25.
Ð in any event, order the Commission of the European
     Communities to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                    Action brought on 19 December 1997 by Trasporti e
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those            Spedizioni Internazionali Cossutta SNC against the
relied upon in Case T-288/97 Regione Friuli-Venezia                          Commission of the European Communities
Giulia v. Commission (1).
                                                                                (Case T-602/97)
(1) OJ C 7, 10.1.1998, p. 25.                                                                 (98/C 72/42)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                    An action against the Commission of the European
Action brought on 19 December 1997 by Ditta Fabrizio                Communities was brought before the Court of First
Cernecca against the Commission of the European                     Instance of the European Communities on 19 December
                          Communities                               1997 by Trasporti e Spedizioni Internazionali Cossutta
                       (Case T-601/97)                              SNC, represented by Marcello Clarich and Alessandro
                                                                    Giadrossi, of the Bars of Florence and Trieste, with an
                          (98/C 72/41)                              address for service at the latter's Chambers at 17 Via
                                                                    XXX Ottobre, Trieste.
                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 19 December                 Ð annul Commission Decision C(97) 2735 final of
1997 by Ditta Fabrizio Cernecca, represented by Marcello                 30 July 1997,
 ---pagebreak--- 7.3.98                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 72/19
Ð in the alternative, annul Article 5 of that Decision              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     inasmuch as it requires the Member State to recover
     the aid (granted as from 1 July 1990), together with
     the interest accrued as from the date on which the aid         The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
     was paid,                                                      relied upon in Case T-288/97 Regione Friuli-Venezia
                                                                    Giulia v. Commission (1).
Ð in any event, order the Commission of the European                (1) OJ C 7, 10.1.1998, p. 25.
     Communities to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those            Action brought on 19 December 1997 by Cointra
relied upon in Case T-288/97 Regione Friuli-Venezia                 Transport and Trade Co. Srl against the Commission of
Giulia v. Commission (1).                                                             the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-604/97)
(1) OJ C 7, 10.1.1998, p. 25.
                                                                                (98/C 72/44)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                    An action against the Commission of the European
Action brought on 19 December 1997 by Ditta Giuseppe                Communities was brought before the Court of First
Camaur against the Commission of the European                       Instance of the European Communities on 19 December
                         Communities                                1997 by Cointra Transport and Trade Co. Srl, represented
                                                                    by Marcello Clarich and Alessandro Giadrossi, of the Bars
                       (Case T-603/97)
                                                                    of Florence and Trieste, with an address for service at the
                          (98/C 72/43)                              latter's Chambers at 17 Via XXX Ottobre, Trieste.
                (Language of the case: Italian)                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                    Ð annul Commission Decision C(97) 2735 final of
An action against the Commission of the European                         30 July 1997,
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 19 December
1997 by Ditta Giuseppe Camaur, represented by Marcello
                                                                    Ð in the alternative, annul Article 5 of that Decision
Clarich and Alessandro Giadrossi, of the Bars of Florence
                                                                         inasmuch as it requires the Member State to recover
and Trieste, with an address for service at the latter's
                                                                         the aid (granted as from 1 July 1990), together with
Chambers at 17 Via XXX Ottobre, Trieste.
                                                                         the interest accrued as from the date on which the aid
                                                                         was paid,
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                    Ð in any event, order the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities to pay the costs.
Ð annul Commission Decision C(97) 2735 final of
     30 July 1997,
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Ð in the alternative, annul Article 5 of that Decision
     inasmuch as it requires the Member State to recover            The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
     the aid (granted as from 1 July 1990), together with           relied upon in Case T-288/97 Regione Friuli-Venezia
     the interest accrued as from the date on which the aid         Giulia v. Commission (1).
     was paid,
                                                                    (1) OJ C 7, 10.1.1998, p. 25.
Ð in any event, order the Commission of the European
     Communities to pay the costs.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 April 2003 in Case T-224/01: Durferrit GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — Earlier word mark TUFFTRIDE — Application for Community word mark NU-TRIDE — Likelihood of confusion — Likelihood of association — Trade marks which are contrary to public policy or to accepted principles of morality — Article 7(1)(f) and Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
7.6.2003                 EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                       C 135/27
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                address for service in Luxembourg, v Office for Harmonisation
                                                                            in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
                           of 9 April 2003                                  (Agents: A. von Mühlendahl and O. Waelbroeck): Action
                                                                            brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of
in Case T-155/01: Robert Walton v Commission of the                         the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
                    European Communities ( 1)                               Marks and Designs) of 6 July 2001 (Case R 864/1999-1),
                                                                            relating to opposition proceedings between Durferrit GmbH
(Temporary staff — Dismissal for unsatisfactory perform-                    and Kolene Corporation, the Court of First Instance (Fourth
ance of duties — Action for annulment and for compensation                  Chamber), composed of: M. Vilaras, President, V. Tiili and
                             for dismissal)                                 P. Mengozzi, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the
                                                                            Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 April 2003, in which it:
                           (2003/C 135/41)
                                                                            1.     Dismisses the action;
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                            2.     Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
In Case T-155/01, Robert Walton, a former member of
the temporary staff of the Commission of the European
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 3 of 5.1.2002.
Communities, residing in Oxford (United Kingdom), represent-
ed by P. Harris, Barrister, v Commission of the European
Communities (Agent: J. Currall): Application principally for
annulment of the letter of 3 October 2000, whereby the
Commission terminated the applicant’s employment as a
member of the temporary staff, and for compensation for
breach of his contract of employment, the Court of First
Instance (Second Chamber), composed of: N.J. Forwood,
President, J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; J. Plingers,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
9 April 2003, in which it has ruled:
                                                                                of 3 April 2003
1.     The application is dismissed.
2.     The parties shall bear their own costs.                              in Case T-114/02: Babyliss SA v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities ( 1)
( 1) OJ C 275 of 29.09.2001.
                                                                            (Competition — Concentrations — Regulation (EEC)
                                                                            No 4064/89 — Action brought by a third party — Admissi-
                                                                            bility — Phase one undertakings — Trade mark licence —
                                                                            Amendments to undertakings — Time-limits — Financial
                                                                            assistance provided by the State — Derisory trade-in price
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                            — Serious doubts concerning the compatibility of the
                                                                            concentration with the common market — Absence of
                           of 9 April 2003
                                                                            undertaking with regard to markets posing serious compe-
                                                                                tition problems)
in Case T-224/01: Durferrit GmbH v Office for Harmonis-
ation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                               (OHIM) (1)                                                             (2003/C 135/43)
(Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — Earlier
word mark TUFFTRIDE — Application for Community                                                 (Language of the case: French)
word mark NU-TRIDE — Likelihood of confusion —
Likelihood of association — Trade marks which are contrary
to public policy or to accepted principles of morality —
Article 7(1)(f) and Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation                   In Case T-114/02: Babyliss SA, established in Montrouge
                            (EC) No 40/94)                                  (France) represented by J.-P. Gunther, lawyer, supported by De
                                                                            Longhi SpA, established in Trevisso (Italy), represented by
                           (2003/C 135/42)                                  M. Merola, D. Domenicucci and I. van Schendel, lawyers,
                                                                            against Commission of the European Comunities (Agents:
                    (Language of the case: English)                         V. Superti, K. Wiedner and F. Lelièvre), supported by SEB SA,
                                                                            established in Écully (France), represented by D. Voillemot
                                                                            and S. Hautbourg, lawyers — application for annulment of
In Case T-224/01, Durferrit GmbH, established in Mannheim                   Commission Decision D/228078 of 8 January 2002 not to
(Germany), represented by P. Koch Moreno, lawyer, with an                   oppose the concentration between SEB and Moulinex and to


title: Case C-406/05: Order of the President of the Court of 24 July 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v P. Jurriëns Beheer BV

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/36

         Order of the President of the Court of 24 July 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v P. Jurriëns Beheer BV
   (Case C-406/05) (1)

   (2006/C 294/64)

      Language of the case: Dutch

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

      (1)  OJ C 22, 28.01.2006.


title: Action brought on 3 October 1995 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Case C-312/95)

text:
No C 315/ 10            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    25 . 11 . 95
      the Treaty: the low production of table wine in the                 Directive 92/50/EEC ( ) of 18 June 1992 relating to the
      Community in the 1994/95 wine-growing year has led to               coordination of procedures for the award of public service
      a market situation which is generally satisfactory and , in         contracts into its national law .
      particular, to quite favourable prices, which should raise
      the income of wine growers . As regards the attempts on             (') OJ No L 209 , 24 . 7 . 1992 , p . 1 .
      the part of French wine growers to curtail the
      production of table wine, the Commission points out
      that those attempts have been supported by the
      Community, in particular through the measures laid
      down by Council Directive 78/627/EEC ( ] ) on the
      programme to accelerate the restructuring and
      conversion of vineyards in certain Mediterranean
      regions in France and those laid down by Council                   Action brought on 3 October 1995 by the Commission of
      Regulation ( EEC ) No 458/80 ( 2 ) on collective projects          the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
      for the restructuring of vineyards .                                                            Luxembourg
                                                                                ( Case C-3 12/95 )
— Insufficient and erroneous statement of reasons .                                                  ( 95/C 315/ 19 )
(') OJ No L 206 , 29 . 7 . 1978 , p . 1 .                                An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
( 2 ) OJ No L 57, 29 . 2 . 1980 , p . 27 .                               brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                         Communities on 3 October 1995 by the Commission of the
                                                                         European Communities, represented by Frank Benyon,
                                                                         Legal Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
                                                                         Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
                                                                         Wagner Centre , Kirchberg.
                                                                         The Commission of the European Communities claims that
Action brought on 2 October 1995 by the Commission of                    the Court should :
the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
                          ( Case C-3 11 /95 )
                                                                          1 . Declare that, by failing within the prescribed period
                            ( 95/C 315/18 )                                    to adopt all the measures necessary in order to comply
                                                                               with Council Directives 90/219/EEC of 23 April 1990
                                                                               on the contained use of genetically modified
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before                     micro-organisms (') and 90/220/EEC of 23 April 1990
the Court of Justice on 2 October 1995 by the Commission                       on the deliberate release into the environment of
of the European Communities, represented by Dimitrios                          genetically modified organisms ( 2 ), the Grand Duchy of
Gouloussis , Legal Advisor, with an address for service in                     Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of the                    Articles 22 and 23 of Directives 90/219/EEC and
Commission 's Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                         90/220/EEC respectively and Articles 5 and 189 of the
                                                                               EC Treaty .
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                        2 . Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the
                                                                               costs .
1 . Declare that, by failing to bring into force and, in the
      alternative, to communicate to the Commission, the
      laws , regulations and administrative provisions                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
      necessary to comply fully with Council Directive
      92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination            The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third
      of procedures for the award of public service contracts ,         paragraph of Article 189 and of the first paragraph of
      the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations        Article 5 of the EC Treaty is such as to oblige Member States
      under the EC Treaty .                                             to whom directives are addressed to adopt the measures
                                                                        necessary for the implementation of such directives within
2 . Order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs .                      the time limit prescribed therein . The time limit in question,
                                                                        as regards both the above Directives, expired on 23 October
                                                                         1991 but the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has not adopted
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     the necessary measures .
In this action for failure by a Member State to fulfil its               (') OJ No L 117 , 8 . 5 . 1990 , p . 1 .
Treaty obligations ( Article 169 of the EC Treaty), the                  ( 2 ) OJ No L 117, 8 . 5 . 1990 , p . 15 .
Commission complains that the Hellenic Republic has not
taken, and subsequently not communicated to the
Commission, the measures necessary to transpose Council


title: Case C-238/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vilniaus miesto apylinkės teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 9 May 2017 — ‘Renerga’ UAB v ‘Energijos skirstymo operatorius’ AB, ‘Lietuvos energijos gamyba’ AB

text:
               17.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 231/18

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vilniaus miesto apylinkės teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 9 May 2017 — ‘Renerga’ UAB v ‘Energijos skirstymo operatorius’ AB, ‘Lietuvos energijos gamyba’ AB
   (Case C-238/17)
   (2017/C 231/23)
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Referring court

   Vilniaus miesto apylinkės teismas

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant:‘Renerga’ UAB

      Defendants:‘Energijos skirstymo operatorius’ AB, ‘Lietuvos energijos gamyba’ AB

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the objective of ‘ensuring that system operators and system users are granted appropriate incentives, in both the short and the long term, to increase efficiencies in system performance and foster market integration’, laid down in Article 36(f) of Directive 2009/72/EC (1) for the regulatory authority carrying out the regulatory tasks specified in Directive 2009/72, to be understood and interpreted as prohibiting a failure to grant incentives (a failure to pay PIS [public interest service] compensation) or their restriction?

               2.

               Having regard to the fact that Article 3(2) of Directive 2009/72 provides that PIS obligations are to be clearly defined, transparent, non-discriminatory and verifiable, and Article 3(6) of Directive 2009/72 provides that financial compensation to PIS persons is to be determined in a non-discriminatory and transparent way, it is necessary to clarify the following:

                           2.1.

                           are the provisions of Article 3(2) and (6) of Directive 2009/72 to be interpreted as prohibiting the incentivisation of PIS providers from being restricted if they properly fulfil the obligations assumed by them that are related to PIS provision?

                           2.2.

                           is an obligation laid down in national law to suspend the payment of financial compensation received by PIS providers irrespective of the activities for PIS provision carried out by the PIS provider and of the fulfilment of the obligations assumed by it, but linking the ground for restricting (suspending) the payment of PIS compensation to, and making it dependent on, the performance by a person connected with the PIS provider (a controlling interest in which is held by the same undertaking as that which has a controlling interest in the PIS provider) of actions and obligations when accounting for the PIS consumption monies calculated for that undertaking, to be regarded as discriminatory, unclear and restrictive of fair competition for the purposes of the provisions of Article 3(2) and (6) of Directive 2009/72?

                           2.3.

                           is an obligation laid down in national law to suspend the payment of financial compensation received by PIS providers, while the PIS providers remain obliged to continue to fulfil in full their PIS provision obligations and related contractual obligations to undertakings purchasing electricity, to be regarded as discriminatory, unclear and restrictive of fair competition for the purpose of the provisions of Article 3(2) and (6) of Directive 2009/72?

               3.

               Under Article 3(15) of Directive 2009/72 which requires Member States to inform the European Commission every two years of changes to all measures adopted to fulfil universal service and public service obligations, is a Member State which has established in national legal measures legislation laying down grounds, rules and a mechanism for restricting compensation payable to PIS providers obliged to inform the European Commission of such new legislation?

               4.

               Does the laying down by a Member State in national law of grounds, rules and a mechanism for restricting compensation payable to PIS providers offend against the objectives of implementation of Directive 2009/72 and against general principles of EU law (legal certainty, legitimate expectations, proportionality, transparency and non-discrimination)?

      (1)  Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC (OJ 2009 L 211, p. 55).


No C 94/14              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                               22 . 3 . 97
         overland transport operation, merely discovered              removal from the register of Case C-2 11/96 : Commission
         that the goods delivered to him were damaged,                of the European Communities y. Hellenic Republic.
         constitute — and if so under what conditions —
         the place of occurrence of the damage which,                 (<) OJ No C 269, 14. 9 . 1996 .
         according to the judgment of the Court of Justice
         of 30 November 1976 in Case 21 /76 Bier v. Mines
         de Potasse d'Alsace [ 1976] ECR, p. 1735 , may be
         the place ' of the event giving rise to the damage'
         within the meaning of Article 5 ( 3 ) of the
         Convention ?                                                       Removal from the register of Case C-226/96 (')
                                                                                ( 97/C 94/31 )
2 . May a defendant domiciled in the territory of a
     Contracting State be brought, in another Contracting             By order of 4 December 1996 the President of the Court
     State, before the court hearing an action against a co          of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
     defendant not domiciled in the territory of any                  removal from the register of Case C-226/96 : Commission
     Contracting State, on the ground that the dispute is             of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic .
     indivisible, rather than merely displaying a
    connection ?                                                      O OJ No C 269, 14 . 9 . 1996 .
       Removal from the register of Case C-94/96 (')                        Removal from the register of Case C-227/96 (')
                            ( 97/C 94/28 )                                                        ( 97/C 94/32 )
                                                                      By order of 3 December 1996 the President of the Court
By order of 5 December 1996 the President of the Court                of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the                removal from the register of Case C-227/96 : Commission
removal from the register of Case C-94/96 : Commission of             of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic .
the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic.
                                                                      n OJ No C 269 , 14 . 9 . 1996 .
(') OJ No C 158 , 1 . 6 . 1996 .
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-241/96 ( ')
Removal from the register of Joined Cases C- 109/96,                                              ( 97/C 94/33 )
            C-110/96, C-lll/96 and C-112/96 (')
                              97/C 94/29 )                            By order of 6 December 1996 the President of the Court
                                                                      of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
By order of 10 December 1996 the President of the Court               removal from the register of Case C-241 /96 : Commission
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the                of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic.
removal from the register of Joined Cases C-109, C-110,
C-lll and C-112/96 : Commission of the European                       (') OJ No C 269, 14 . 9 . 1996 .
Communities v. Hellenic Republic.
H OJ No C 158 , 1 . 6 . 1996 .
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-244/96 (')
                                                                                ( 97/C 94/34 )
       Removal from the register of Case C-2 11/96 (')                By order of 13 December 1996 the President of the Court
                                                                      of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
                            ( 97/C 94/30)                             removal from the register of Case C-244/96 : Commission
                                                                      of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium.
By order of 5 December 1996 the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the                (') OJ No C 269 , 14 . 9 . 1996 .


title: Case C-144/03: Action brought on 31 March 2003 by Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic

text:
24.5.2003              EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                        C 124/13
Action brought on 31 March 2003 by the Commission of                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain
                                                                        —     Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force the
                         (Case C-142/03)                                      laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary
                                                                              to comply with Commission Directive 2000/52/EC ( 1) of
                                                                              26 July 2000 amending Directive 80/723/EEC on the
                         (2003/C 124/21)                                      transparency of financial relations between Member
                                                                              States and public undertakings, the Portuguese Republic
                                                                              has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of
                                                                              Directive 2000/52/EC;
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 31 March            —     declare in any event that, by failing to communicate
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                              forthwith those provisions to the Commission, the Portu-
represented by Fernando Castillo de la Torre and Niels Bertil                 guese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Rasmusen, members of its Legal Service, with an address for                   Article 2 of Directive 2000/52/EC;
service in Luxembourg.
                                                                        —     order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     declare that the Kingdom of Spain has infringed Article 91
      of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December                Pleas in law and main arguments
      1993 on the Community trade mark ( 1) by having
      failed to communicate to the Commission the list of
      Community trade mark courts;                                      The period prescribed for implementation of the directive
                                                                        expired on 31 July 2001.
—     order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
                                                                        (1 ) OJ L 193 of 29 July 2000, p. 75.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The Member States are under an obligation to designate,
within three years following entry into force of the regulation,
‘Community trade mark courts’ and to communicate to the
Commission their names and their territorial jurisdiction. That
information should have been communicated by 15 March                   Appeal brought on 31 March 2003 by Philip Morris
1997 at the latest.                                                     International, Inc., against the judgment delivered on
                                                                        15 January 2003 by the Second Chamber (Extended
                                                                        Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the
( 1) OJ L 11 of 14.1.1994, p. 1.                                        European Communities in joined cases T-377/00, T-379/
                                                                        00, T-380/00, T-260/01 and T-272/01 between Philip
                                                                        Morris International, Inc., R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Hold-
                                                                        ings, Inc., RJR Acquisition Corp., R.J. Reynolds Tobacco
                                                                        Company, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco International Inc., and
                                                                        Japan Tobacco, Inc., and Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities, supported by European Parliament,
                                                                        Kingdom of Spain, French Republic, Italian Republic,
Action brought on 31 March 2003 by Commission of the                    Portuguese Republic, Republic of Finland, Federal Repub-
  European Communities against the Portuguese Republic                  lic of Germany, Hellenic Republic, Kingdom of the
                                                                                Netherlands
                         (Case C-144/03)
                                                                                (Case C-146/03 P)
                         (2003/C 124/22)
                                                                                (2003/C 124/23)
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 31 March
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,                     An appeal against the judgment delivered on 15 January 2003
represented by M. França and J. Flett, acting as Agents, with an        by the Second Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court
address for service in Luxembourg.                                      of First Instance of the European Communities in joined cases


title: Case T-674/11: Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2015 — TV2/Danmark v Commission (State aid — Public broadcasting service — Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market — Aid implemented by the Danish authorities in favour of the Danish public service broadcaster TV2/Danmark — Public financing granted to compensate for costs inherent in the performance of public service obligations — Concept of aid — Altmark judgment)

text:
               23.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 389/25

         Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2015 — TV2/Danmark v Commission
   (Case T-674/11) (1)

   ((State aid - Public broadcasting service - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market - Aid implemented by the Danish authorities in favour of the Danish public service broadcaster TV2/Danmark - Public financing granted to compensate for costs inherent in the performance of public service obligations - Concept of aid - Altmark judgment))
   (2015/C 389/25)
   Language of the case: Danish

      Parties

      Applicant: TV2/Danmark A/S (Odense, Denmark) (represented by: O. Koktvedgaard, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky, C. Støvlbæk and U. Nielsen, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented initially by C. Vang and V. Pasternak Jørgensen, Agents, then subsequently by V. Pasternak Jørgensen, assisted by K. Lundgaard Hansen, lawyer, and finally by C. Thorning, Agent, assisted by K. Lundgaard Hansen and R. Holdgaard, lawyers)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Viasat Broadocasting UK Ltd (West Drayton, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Kalsmose-Hjelmborg and M. Honoré, lawyers)

      Re:

   Partial annulment of Commission Decision 2011/839/EU of 20 April 2011 concerning Danish measures (C 2/03) in favour of TV2/Danmark (OJ 2011 L 340, p. 1).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision 2011/839/EU of 20 April 2011 concerning Danish measures (C 2/03) in favour of TV2/Danmark in so far as the Commission found that the advertising revenues for the years 1995 and 1996 paid to TV2/Danmark through the TV2 Fund constituted State aid.

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder.

               3.

               Orders TV2/Danmark A/S to bear its own costs and to pay three-quarters of the costs incurred by the European Commission.

               4.

               Orders the Commission to bear one-quarter of its costs.

               5.

               Orders the Kingdom of Denmark and Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd each to bear their respective costs.

      (1)  OJ C 80, 17.3.2012.


title: Case C-269/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour d'appel of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg by judgment of that Court in the civil proceedings between 1. Administration de l'Enregistrement et des Domaines, and 2. État du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg and Vermietungsgesellschaft Objekt Kirchberg

text:
C 200/16                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                        23.8.2003
Secondly, reserving delegated management contracts solely to                     with the Czech and Slovak Federative Republic, Rumania
the legal entities listed in Article 4 of the Law of 12 July 1985                and Poland concerning inland navigation, which affect the
on the supervision of public work and its relation with the                      Community rules adopted by the Community in Council
supervision of private work, as amended, constitutes a restric-                  Regulation (EEC) No 3921/91 of 16 December 1991
tion on the principle of the freedom to provide services. Such a                 laying down the conditions under which non-resident
restriction cannot be justified either by Article 45, inasmuch as                carriers may transport goods or passengers by inland
the tasks entrusted are not connected, even occasionally, with                   waterway within a Member State. Article 7 of those
the exercise of official authority, or by Article 46, since grounds              agreements provides, subject to special authorisation, for
of public policy, public security or public health are not applic-               access to cabotage in Luxembourg by carriers from the
able in the present case.                                                        non-member countries concerned.
(1) Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the
                                                                           —     The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has not observed its
    coordination of procedures for the award of public service                   obligations under Article 10 EC by negotiating,
    contracts (OJ L 209, 24.07.1992, p. 1).                                      concluding, ratifying and arranging for the entry into
                                                                                force of the bilateral agreements in question after the
                                                                                grant of a negotiating mandate by the Council to the
                                                                                Commission to negotiate an agreement between the EEC,
                                                                                on the one hand, and Poland and the States parties to the
                                                                                Danube Convention (Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Rumania,
                                                                                Bulgaria, the former USSR, the former Yugoslavia and
Action brought on 18 June 2003 by the Commission of                              Austria), on the other.
the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
                             Luxembourg                                    —     The bilateral agreements concluded by the Grand Duchy
                                                                                of Luxembourg are incompatible with Council Regulation
                           (Case C-266/03)                                       (EC) No 1356/96 of 8 July 1996 on common rules
                                                                                applicable to the transport of goods or passengers by
                                                                                inland waterway between Member States with a view to
                           (2003/C 200/28)
                                                                                establishing freedom to provide such transport services.
                                                                                The Polish, Rumanian, Czech and Slovak shippers and
                                                                                navigation companies capable of being authorised under
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was                              the bilateral agreements in question to effect transports
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Commu-                       between Luxembourg and the other Member States do
nities on 18 June 2003 by the Commission of the European                         not satisfy the conditions laid down in that regulation.
Communities, represented by C. Schmidt and W. Wils, acting
as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                           (1) OJ 1991 L 373, p. 1.
                                                                           (2) OJ 1996 L 175, p. 7.
The Commission of the European Communities claims that the
Court should:
1.    Declare that, under the first paragraph of Article 226 of
      the Treaty establishing the European Community, the
      Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, by individually negotiating,
      concluding, ratifying, arranging for the entry into force
      and refusing to renounce the bilateral agreements with the
      Czech and Slovak Federative Republic, Rumania and                    Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour d'appel of
      Poland concerning inland navigation, has failed to fulfil            the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg by judgment of that
      its obligations under Article 10 EC and Council Regula-              Court in the civil proceedings between 1. Administration
      tion (EEC) No 3921/91 of 16 December 1991 laying                     de l'Enregistrement et des Domaines, and 2. État du
      down the conditions under which non-resident carriers                Grand-Duché de Luxembourg and Vermietungsgesellschaft
      may transport goods or passengers by inland waterway                                          Objekt Kirchberg
      within a Member State (1) and Council Regulation (EC)
      No 1356/96 of 8 July 1996 on common rules applicable
      to the transport of goods or passengers by inland                                             (Case C-269/03)
      waterway between Member States with a view to estab-
      lishing freedom to provide such transport services (2).
                                                                                (2003/C 200/29)
2.    Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
                                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                           European Communities by judgment of the Cour d'appel
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            (Court of Appeal) of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg,
                                                                           received at the Court Registry on 20 June 2003, for a
—     The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has infringed the                      preliminary ruling in the civil proceedings between 1. Adminis-
      exclusive Community competence as defined in the                     tration de l'Enregistrement et des Domaines (Registration and
      ERTA case (Case 22/70 Commission v Council [1971]                    Land Authority), and 2. État du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg
      ECR 263) by negotiating, concluding, ratifying and arran-            and Vermietungsgesellschaft Objekt Kirchberg on the following
      ging for the entry into force of the bilateral agreements            question:
 ---pagebreak--- 23.8.2003             EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 200/17
Does subparagraph (a) of the first paragraph of Article 13C of           As regards hazardous waste transported directly by its
the Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on               producer, the same provision of the Italian decree establishes
the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to           a further exemption from the requirement of registration in
turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax (1),                   the register referred to above, which applies to undertakings
permit a Member State which has exercised the power to allow             that transport less than 30 litres or 30 kg of waste per day.
taxpayers a right of option for taxation in cases of letting and
leasing of immovable property to make full deduction of the
input VAT conditional upon non-retroactive approval of the tax           In sum, the requirement in question is limited to the collection
authorities first being obtained?                                        and transportation of hazardous waste, except in cases where
                                                                         the collection or transportation of such waste is carried out by
                                                                         its producer in quantities below a certain daily limit, and to
(1) OJ L 145, 13.06.1977, p. 1.                                          the collection and transportation of non-hazardous waste on
                                                                         behalf of others.
                                                                         That is clearly inconsistent with the directive. According to
                                                                         Article 12 of the directive, all undertakings, without distinc-
                                                                         tion, which on a professional basis collect or transport waste
                                                                         of any kind, whether hazardous or non-hazardous, must,
                                                                         where not subject to authorisation, be registered with the
Action brought on 23 June 2003 by the Commission of                      competent authorities.
   the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                                                                         (1) OJ L 194, 25.07.1975, p. 39.
                                                                         (2) OJ L 78, 26.03.1991, p. 32.
                          (Case C-270/03)
                          (2003/C 200/30)
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 23 June
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,                      Action brought on 21 June 2003 by Ireland against the
represented by L. Visaggio and R. Amorosi, acting as Agents.                      Commission of the European Communities
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Case C-271/03)
—     declare that, by permitting undertakings, under
      Article 30(4) of Legislative Decree No 22, of 5 February                                     (2003/C 200/31)
      1997, as amended by Law No 426, of 9 December 1998,
      to collect and transport their own non-hazardous waste,
      as an ordinary activity, without requiring them to be
      registered in the national register of undertakings carrying       An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
      out waste disposal services, and, in addition, by permit-          nities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
      ting undertakings to transport their own hazardous waste           Communities on 21 June 2003 by Ireland, represented by
      in quantities of less than 30 kg and 30 litres per day,            D.J. O'Hagan, acting as agent, assisted by P. Gallagher SC,
      without requiring them to be entered in that register, the         P. McGarry, Barrister and J. Buttimore of the Office of the
      Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under        Attorney General, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
      Article 12 of Directive 75/442/EEC (1) on waste, as
      amended by Directive 91/156/EEC (2);
                                                                         The Applicant claims that the Court should:
—     order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                         a)    declare the action admissible;
                                                                         b)    annul Commission Decision C(2003)1084 reducing assis-
                                                                               tance granted from the European Regional Development
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                Find (ERDF) to the Global Grant Scheme for Private
                                                                               Sector Tourism and Development, Operational Programme
                                                                               for Tourism (1989-1993) sub-programme 2, in Ireland
As regards non-hazardous waste, Article 30(4) of the Legisla-                  under Commission Decision C89(2258/7) of 21 December
tive Decree expressly exempts undertakings which, on their                     1989;
own account, collect and transport non-hazardous waste in
the course of their particular occupational activities from the
requirement of registration in the national register of under-           c)    order the Commission to bear the costs of the proceed-
takings carrying out waste disposal services.                                  ings.


title: Case F-82/08: Action brought on 13 October 2008 — Clarke, Papathanasiou and Periañez-González v OHIM

text:
               24.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/38

         Action brought on 13 October 2008 — Clarke, Papathanasiou and Periañez-González v OHIM
   (Case F-82/08)
   (2009/C 19/74)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Nicole Clarke (Alicante, Spain), Elisavet Papathanasiou (Alicante, Spain) and Mercedes Periañez-González (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, Rechtsanwalt)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   Application for, first, a declaration of the invalidity of the clauses in the applicants' contracts which make provision for automatic termination of their contracts in the event that they are not included on the reserve list drawn up following the first open competition for their function group and, second, for a declaration that the open competitions OHIM/AD/02/07 and OHIM/AST/02/07 have no effect on the contracts of the applicants or for the annulment of that competition. Application for damages.
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declaration of the invalidity of the terms of Article 5 of the employment contract of each of the applicants;

               —

               A declaration that the notice of competition published on 12.12.2007 under the numbers OHIM/AD/02/07 and OHIM/AST/02/07 in the Official Journal of the EU C 300 A has no effect on the employment relationships of the applicants;

               —

               In the alternative, annulment of the decisions taken by OHIM on 12.7.2008 in the form of an implied rejection pursuant to the third indent of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations (as regards applicants 1, 2 and 3) and the decision of OHIM of 18.7.2008 (as regards applicant 2);

               —

               In the further alternative, the annulment of the decisions by OHIM of 7.3.2008 to reject the requests made by the applicants under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations,
               Insofar as those decisions reject

                           —

                           The approval of the variation of the applicants' contracts of indefinite duration so that the provision in Article 5 of the contracts regarding the requirement of an additional external competition is entirely deleted without being replaced, or in the alternative is deleted at least as regards the first sentence,

                           —

                           The declaration of the continued existence of the contracts of indefinite duration concluded with the applicants,

                           —

                           The declaration, that the applicants' participation in an open competition is not required in order to continue to be employed in OHIM as members of the temporary staff under a contract of indefinite duration,
                           And the application made in the alternative for a

                           —

                           Declaration that there is no requirement for the participation of the applicants in the competition published on 12.12.2007 under numbers OHIM/AD/02/07 and OHIM/AST/02/07 in the Official Journal of the EU C 300 A in order for them to continue to be employed in OHIM as members of the temporary staff under a contract of indefinite duration,

               —

               The annulment of the statements by the Personnel Division of OHIM in the letters to the applicants of 19.12.2007 in which OHIM linked the publication in the Official Journal of 12.12.2007 with the terms of Article 5 of the employment contracts concluded with the applicants;

               —

               And in the alternative the annulment of the competition published in Official Journal of the EU C 300 A of 12.12.2007, insofar as it causes prejudice to the applicants;

               —

               An order that OHIM pay compensation to the applicants in such an amount as the Court shall order for the psychological and non-material damage caused to them by the decisions to be annulled in accordance with the present application;

               —

               An order that the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) pay the costs.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hessisches Landesarbeitsgericht by order of that court of 1 July 1996 in the case of Hans-Jörg Dick v. EB-Schulungs-Gesellschaft mbH (in liquidation) (Case C-277/96)

text:
 26 . 10 . 96            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 318/3
 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hessisches                 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di
 Landesarbeitsgericht by order of that court of 1 July 1996 in          Genova by orders of 27 June 1996 ( Case C-279/96 ) and
 the case of Hans-Jorg Dick v. EB-Schulungs-Gesellschaft                19 July 1996 ( Cases C-280/96 and C-281/96 ) in the cases
                       mbH ( in liquidation )                           of: 1 . Ansaldo Energia SpA v. Amministrazione Finanziaria
                          ( Case C-277/96 )                             dello Stato, 2 . Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v.
                                                                        Marine Insurance Consultants SRL, and 3 . G. M. B. SRL
                             ( 96/C 318/02 )                             and Others v . Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      (Joined Cases C-279/96 , C-280/96 and C-281 /96 )
 European Communities by a judgment of the Hessisches                                             ( 96/C 318 /04 )
 Landesarbeitsgericht ( Higher Labour Court, Hesse ) of
 1 July 1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on
 20 August 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of               Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
 Hans-Jorg Dick v. EB-Schulungs-Gesellschaft mbH ( in                   European Communities by orders of 27 June 1996 and
 liquidation ) on the following question :                              21 August 1996 of the Tribunale di Genova ( Genoa District
                                                                        Court ), which were all received at the Court Registry on
 Does Council Directive 77/ 187/EEC ( l ) apply where :                 21 August 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the cases of
                                                                        1 . Ansaldo Energia SpA v. Amministrazione Finanziaria
 — an undertaking, engaged in vocational training and                   dello Stato, 2 . Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v.
     retraining, whose trainees are on courses sponsored by             Marine Insurance Consultants SRL, and 3 . G. M. B. SRL
     the employment authorities that lead to qualification              and Others v. Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato on
     as an industrial clerical officer, terminates , because            the following questions :
     of its insolvency, its agreements with the employment
     authorities, whereupon a legally independent
     competitor undertaking, that has previously run only               1 . Is national legislation which sets, in respect of the
     courses of other kinds, some independently financed and                 initiation of proceedings to safeguard a right arising
     some sponsored likewise by the employment authorities,                  under Community law, a time limit which starts to run
     takes over under an agreement with those authorities                    before the correct and complete transposition into
     the running of the courses begun by the first                           national law of the Directive conferring that right
     undertaking;                                                            compatible with Community law ?
 — at about the same time the second undertaking enters
     into new contracts of employment with a significant                2 . Is it compatible with Community law to provide a party
     proportion of the teaching staff of the insolvent                       whose rights are recognized as having been infringed,
     undertaking, in order to reinforce its own personnel, and               and to whom repayment of the sums claimed is granted ,
     uses them to teach the courses that it has taken over;                  with a remedial procedure under which the rules as to
     and                                                                     quantum differ from, and compare unfavourably with ,
                                                                             those laid down in respect of actions for repayment
 — the second undertaking is subsequently appointed by the                   between private individuals, and are substantially
     employment authorities to run new courses as well , like                determined by a measure enacted by the same State as
     those previously run by the insolvent undertaking ?                     that which infringed the injured party's rights by failing
                                                                             to fulfil its obligations ?
 (') OJ No L 61 , 5 . 3 . 1977, p . 26 .
 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
 Genova — Sezione l a Civile by order of that court of 23 May
 1996 in the dispute pending before it between Vezza SpA                Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de
                  and Ministero delle Finanze                           Grande Instance de Briey by judgment of that court of
                                                                        8 August 1996 in the case of Didier Tabouillot v. Directeur
                          ( Case C-278/96                                       des Services Fiscaux de Meurthe et de Moselle
                            ( 96/C 318/03 )
                                                                                Case C-284/96 )
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                           ( 96/C 318 /05 )
 European Communities by order of the Tribunale di
 Genova — Sezione l a Civile ( Genoa District Court, First
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
 Section ) of 23 May 1996 , which was received at the Court             European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal de
 Registry on 21 August 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the           Grande Instance de Briey ( Regional Court, Briey ) of
 dispute pending before it between Vezza SpA and Ministero              8 August 1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on
-delle Finanze .
                                                                        22 August 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                        Didier Tabouillot v. Directeur des Services Fiscaux de
 The questions referred by the Tribunale di Genova —
 Sezione l a Civile to the Court of Justice for a preliminary           Meurthe et de Moselle ( Chief Tax Inspector for Meurthe et
 ruling are identical with those in Case C-47/95 ( 1 ).                 Moselle ) on the following questions :
 (') OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 , p . 5 .                              1 . Is Article 95 of the EC Treaty to be interpreted as
                                                                             precluding the application of a method for establishing


title: Case C-587/16 P: Appeal brought on 18 November 2016 by Skylotec GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 13 September 2016 in Case T-146/15, hyphen GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

text:
               18.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 121/9

         Appeal brought on 18 November 2016 by Skylotec GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 13 September 2016 in Case T-146/15, hyphen GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

   (Case C-587/16 P)
   (2017/C 121/12)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Skylotec GmbH (represented by: M. De Zorti, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), hyphen GmbH
   By order of 28 February 2017, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Eighth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.


title: Case C-373/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 17 September 2009 — Josep Penarroja Fa v Procureur général près la Cour de cassation

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/30

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 17 September 2009 — Josep Penarroja Fa v Procureur général près la Cour de cassation
   (Case C-373/09)
   2009/C 282/51
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de cassation

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Josep Penarroja Fa

      Defendant: Procureur général près la Cour de cassation

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 50 EC be interpreted as applying to the duties entrusted to a professional, acting as an expert, in a dispute brought before the national courts, and appointed by the court seised of the dispute, under the conditions described [in the order for reference]?

               2.

               Must the connection with the exercise of official authority, referred to in the first paragraph of Article 45 EC, be interpreted as applying to the duties of an expert appointed by a French court, as governed by the French Codes of Civil and Criminal Procedure, and by Law No 71-498 of 29 June 1971 and Decree No 2004-1463 of 23 December 2004?

               3.

               Must Articles 43 EC and 49 EC be interpreted as precluding legislation, such as that resulting from Law No 71-498 of 29 June 1971 and Decree No 2004-1463 of 23 December 2004, as amended, which restricts enrolment on the national register and the title of expert approved by the Cour de cassation to professionals who have been enrolled for at least three years on a register maintained by a French cour d’appel?

               4.

               Must Article 3(1)(a) of Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 (1) be interpreted as covering the performance of the duties of court expert under the title of court expert approved by the Cour de cassation in accordance with the detailed rules laid down by Law No 71-498 of 29 June 1971 and Decree No 2004-1463 of 23 December 2004, as amended?

      (1)  Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22).


title: Case T-59/13 P: Order of the General Court of 7 October 2014 — BT v Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Non-renewal of the contract — Article 76 of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal)

text:
               1.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 431/20

         Order of the General Court of 7 October 2014 — BT v Commission
   (Case T-59/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Non-renewal of the contract - Article 76 of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal))
   (2014/C 431/35)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: BT (Bucharest, Romania) (represented by: N. Visan and G. Coca, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and A.-C. Simon, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 3 December 2012 in Case F-45/12 BT v Commission, ECR-SC, EU:F:2012:168, seeking to have that order set aside.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               BT shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission in the course of the present proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 114, 20.4.2013.


title: Case C-76/00 P: Appeal brought on 2 March 2000 by Petrotub SA and Republica SA against the judgment delivered on 15 December 1999 by the Second Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-33/98 between Petrotub SA and the Council of the European Union, supported by the Commission of the European Communities, and T-34/98 between Republica SA and the Council of the European Union, supported by the Commission of the European Communities

text:
13.5.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 135/7
— Breach of the prohibition on making decisions containing               The Appellants request the Court that:
    sanctions and of the principle of proportionality; absence/
    inadequacy/inconsistency of the reasons stated in that
    respect;                                                             — The judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 Decem-
                                                                             ber 1999 be annulled in so far as it relates to Case
— Breach of rules on limitation periods. Absence and inad-                   T-33/98; and
    equacy of reasons in that respect;
                                                                         — Regulation (EC) No 2320/97 (3) of 17 November 1997 be
— Breach of the prohibition on applying Community rules
                                                                             annulled to the extent requested by the First Appellant
    retroactively. Failure to state reasons in that respect;
                                                                             before the Court of First Instance; and
— Breach of the legal expectations held by Acciaierie di
    Bolzano that it would not have to repay the aid and of the           — The Council be ordered to pay the First Appellant’s costs
    principles of good faith and cooperation;                                both in the present appeal and also in Case T-33/98; and
— Breach of the rule of law which makes the incompatibility
    of ECSC aid dependent on changes in competitive con-                 — The judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 Decem-
    ditions;                                                                 ber 1999 be annulled in so far as it relates to Case
                                                                             T-34/98; and
— Breach of the procedural rules governing inter partes
    proceedings, to the detriment of the interests of Falck and
    Acciaierie di Bolzano.                                               — Regulation (EC) No 2320/97 of 17 November 1997 be
                                                                             annulled to the extent requested by the Second Appellant
                                                                             before the Court of First Instance; and
(1) OJ 1996 L 274, p. 30.
                                                                         — The Council be ordered to pay the Second Appellant’s
                                                                             costs both in the present appeal and also in Case T-34/98.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
Appeal brought on 2 March 2000 by Petrotub SA and
Republica SA against the judgment delivered on
15 December 1999 by the Second Chamber, Extended                         The First Appellant (Petrotub SA) will argue that the Court of
Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the Euro-                 First Instance erred in law in that:
pean Communities in Joined Cases T-33/98 (1) between
Petrotub SA and the Council of the European Union,
supported by the Commission of the European Communi-                     (a) it considered that the Council had stated adequate reasons
ties, and T-34/98 (2) between Republica SA and the Council                   notwithstanding the fact that the reasons given contained
of the European Union, supported by the Commission of                        no consideration as to whether the second symmetrical
                 the European Communities                                    method would not reflect the full degree of dumping being
                                                                             practised by the First Appellant; and/or
                        (Case C-76/00 P)
                                                                         (b) it considered, in the light of the matters referred to in
                        (2000/C 135/13)                                      paragraphs 108 to 113 of its judgment, that the Council
                                                                             had stated adequate reasons for use of the asymmetrical
                                                                             method; and/or
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 15 December
1999 by the Second Chamber, Extended Composition, of the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined            (c) in particular, it considered that the Council had stated
Cases T-33/98 between Petrotub SA and the Council of                         adequate reasons by referring, at least by implication, to
the European Union, supported by the Commission of the                       the fact that the asymmetrical method produced an
European Communities, and T-34/98 between Republica SA                       arithmetically greater result than the first symmetrical
and the Council of the European Union, supported by the                      method; and/or
Commission of the European Communities, was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
2 March 2000 by Petrotub SA and Republica SA, represented                (d) it failed to consider whether the reasons given in the
by Alfred L. Merckx of the Brussels Bar and Philip Bentley QC,               contested regulation constituted an explanation why the
barrister of Lincoln’s Inn, London, with an address for service              differences in export prices could not be taken into account
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Duro & Lorang, 3, rue de                    appropriately by the use of the first or the second
la Chapelle.                                                                 symmetrical methods.
 ---pagebreak--- C 135/8                  EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     13.5.2000
The Second Appellant (Republica SA) will argue that the Court                 (a) provide for a length of leave which exceeds the
of First Instance erred in law in that it considered that the                     minimum length of annual leave laid down in Council
Council had given an adequate statement of reasons for the                        Directive 93/104/EC (1) of 23 November 1993 con-
determination of the margin of dumping in the case of the                         cerning certain aspects of the organisation of working
Second Appellant.                                                                 time;
                                                                                and/or
(1) OJ C 113 of 11.4.1998, p. 18.
(2) OJ C 113 of 11.4.1998, p. 19.
(3) of the Council, imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on                (b) allow employers resident in Germany to claim the
    imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or non-alloy              reimbursement of expenditure on holiday pay and
    steel originating in Hungary, Poland, Russia, the Czech Republic,             holiday allowances from joint bodies of the parties to
    Romania and the Slovak Republic, repealing Regulation (EEC)                   the collective agreements whereas, in the case of
    No 1189/93 and terminating the proceeding in respect of such                  employers resident abroad, they do not provide for
    imports originating in the Republic of Croatia (OJ 1997, L 322,               such a claim but instead for a direct claim by the
    p. 1).
                                                                                posted workers against the joint bodies of the parties
                                                                                to the collective agreements;
                                                                                and/or
                                                                              (c) in connection with the social fund scheme to be
                                                                                complied with under those collective agreements,
                                                                                impose on employers resident abroad obligations to
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arbeitsgericht                          provide information to the joint bodies of the parties
Wiesbaden by order of that court of 15 February 2000                              to the collective agreements whereby the amount of
in the case of Urlaubs- und Lohnausgleichskasse der                               information to be given exceeds the amount required
   Bauwirtschaft against Viscondense Construcoes, Lda.                            from employers resident in Germany?
                           (Case C-77/00)                                 3. Are Articles 48, 59 and 60 of the EC Treaty to be
                                                                              interpreted as infringed by Paragraph 1(4) of the Arbeit-
                                                                              nehmerentsendegesetz, under which — for the purposes of
                          (2000/C 135/14)
                                                                              classifying businesses as covered by a collective agreement
                                                                              which has been declared generally binding and which,
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                        under the first sentence of Paragraph 1(3) of that Law, also
European Communities by order of the Arbeitsgericht (Labour                   applies to employers resident abroad and their workers
Court) Wiesbaden of 15 February 2000, received at the Court                   who have been posted to the area within which that
Registry on 2 March 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case                collective agreement applies — all workers posted to
of Urlaubs- und Lohnausgleichskasse der Bauwirtschaft against                 Germany, but only those workers, are treated as a business,
Viscondense Construcoes, Lda. on the following questions:                     while a different definition of a business applies to
                                                                              employers resident in Germany, which in certain cases
                                                                              results in different businesses falling within the field of
1. Are Articles 48, 59 and 60 of the EC Treaty to be                          application of the generally binding collective agreement?
     interpreted as infringed by a provision of national law —
     the first sentence of Paragraph 1(3) of the Arbeitnehmer-
     entsendegesetz (Law on the Posting of Workers) — which               4. Is Article 3(1)(b) of Directive 96/71/EC (2) of the European
     extends the application of provisions of collective agree-               Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996
     ments which have been declared generally binding con-                    concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the
     cerning the collection of contributions and the grant of                 provision of services to be interpreted as in any event,
     benefits in connection with workers’ holiday entitlements                having regard to the correct interpretation of Articles 48,
     by joint bodies of parties to collective agreements, and                 59 and 60 of the EC Treaty, neither requiring nor
     thus the provisions of those agreements concerning the                   permitting the rules at issue in Questions 1, 2 and 3?
     scheme to be complied with in that regard, to employers
     resident abroad and their workers who have been posted
     to the area within which those collective agreements apply?
                                                                          (1) OJ 1993 L 307, p. 18.
2. Are Articles 48, 59 and 60 of the EC Treaty to be                      (2) OJ 1997 L 18, p. 1.
     interpreted as infringed by the second sentence of Para-
     graph 1(1) and the first sentence of Paragraph 1(3) of the
     Arbeitnehmerentsendegesetz which result in the appli-
     cation of provisions of collective agreements declared to
     be generally binding which:


title: Case F-128/15: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 August 2016 — Marinozzi and Cat v Commission

text:
               10.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 371/35

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 August 2016 — Marinozzi and Cat v Commission
   (Case F-128/15) (1)

   (2016/C 371/45)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 414, 14/12/2015, p. 43.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 December 2000 in Case T-352/99: M v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Sick leave — Leave regarded as unauthorised — Deduction from annual leave entitlement — Articles 59 and 60 of the Staff Regulations — Refusal of medical certificate — Absence of fewer than 4 days — Effects of medical examination)

text:
21.4.2001              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 118/35
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                     of 14 December 2000                                                        of 5 December 2000
in Case T-352/99: M v Commission of the European
                        Communities (1)                                   in Case T-32/00: Messe München GmbH v Office for
                                                                          Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                                                                                Designs) (OHIM) (1)
(Officials — Sick leave — Leave regarded as unauthorised
— Deduction from annual leave entitlement — Articles 59
and 60 of the Staff Regulations — Refusal of medical                      (Community trade mark— ‘electronica’ — Absolute ground
certificate — Absence of fewer than 4 days — Effects of                   for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Descriptiveness
                      medical examination)                                — Articles 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 —
                                                                            Fee for appeal — Article 44 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
                        (2001/C 118/99)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/100)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
In Case T-352/99: M, an officials of the Commission of the
European Communities, residing in Brussels, represented by
J.-N. Louis, G.-F. Parmentier and V. Peere, of the Brussels Bar,          In Case T-32/00: Messe München GmbH, established in
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of               Munich, Germany, represented by M. Graf of the Munich Bar,
Société de Gestion Fiduciaire SARL, 13 Avenue du Bois, against            Mitscherlich & Partner, 33 Sonnenstraße, Munich, against
the Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                       Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
C. Berardis-Kayser and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart) — application              and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: D. Schennen and A. von
for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 9 February                  Mühlendahl) — application for annulment of the Decision of
1999 considering the applicant’s absences from 8 to                       the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in
17 December 1998 and of 25 January 1999 to have been                      the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 December
unauthorised and deducting them from annual leave                         1999 (Case R 177/1998-2) refusing registration of the sign
entitlement — the Court of First Instance (Single Judge                   ‘electronica’ as a Community trade mark — the Court of First
Chamber: R.M. Moura Ramos); G. Herzig, administrator, for                 Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: V. Tiili, President,
the Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 December 2000, in                    R.M. Moura Ramos and P. Mengozzi, Judges; G. Herzig,
which it:                                                                 Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                          5 December 2000, in which it:
1.    Annuls the Commission’s decision of 9 February 1999
      considering the applicant’s absences from 8 to 17 December
      1998 and of 25 January 1999 to have been unauthorised and           1.    Dismisses the action;
      deducting them from annual leave entitlement
                                                                          2.    Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
2.    The Commission shall bear all the costs.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.2000.
(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.