title: Action brought on 11 January 1999 by Medici Grimm KG against the Council of the European Union (Case T-7/99)

text:
27.3.1999             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 86/23
It claims that the Commission failed to appreciate that the             duties paid by the applicant prior to the adoption of
end product produced by the applicant, namely                           that regulation under the powers vested in the Council
hammer-forged reinforcement steel in rings as a cold-form               by the EC Treaty; and
end product of the semi-finished product, wire rod, is not
one of the products falling within Annex 1 (definition of
the expressions coal and steel') of the ECSC Treaty.               Ð order the Council to pay the legal costs and expenses
Under Code 4400 of Annex I, only wire rod' is included                 of the procedure.
as a product of the hot finishing stage of the rolling mill.
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Hammer-forged reinforcement steel in rings' falls within
the sweep-up provisions for particular areas of steel
production which do not fall within the ECSC Treaty;
those provisions expressly specify the drawing' of wire           In 1993 the applicant, a producer of leather handbags,
rod'.                                                               reached an agreement with Lucci Creation Limited, a
                                                                    Hong Kong-based company with manufacturing facilities
                                                                    in China, to produce its leather handbags. These products
In applying the ECSC Treaty to aid for activities not               were manufactured using leather and other materials
covered by the Treaty (Article 81 of the ECSC Treaty read           which the company purchased from European suppliers.
together with Annex I) the Commission, in the contested
decision, not only interpreted the Treaty but amended it
without complying with the requisite procedures of Article          By Regulation (EC) No 209/97 (1) the Commission
81(2) or Article 95(1) of the ECSC Treaty). Furthermore,            imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports into
the Commission misused its powers in abusing its                    the Community of handbags originating in the People's
authority to apply Article 4(c) of the ECSC Treaty and the          Republic of China. Definitive anti-dumping duties were
Steel Aid Code in that it extended the latter to production         subsequently imposed under Council Regulation (EC)
activities falling outside the scope of Annex I to Article 81       No 1567/97 (2).
of the ECSC Treaty without following the procedure
under the second paragraph of Article 81 or Article 95.
                                                                    On 5 November 1998, the contested Council Regulation
                                                                    (EC) No 2380/98 (3) was adopted. This regulation
Finally, the applicant claims that the decision was                 confirmed that no dumping was found on the transactions
unlawfully made restroactive and that the principles of             between the applicant and Lucci Creation Limited and
the protection of legitimate expectations and non-                  that, as a result, both were entitled to an individual
discrimination were infringed.                                      dumping margin of 0,0 %.
                                                                    The request for retroactive effect for these rates of
                                                                    anti-dumping duty was rejected on two grounds:
Action brought on 11 January 1999 by Medici Grimm KG
         against the Council of the European Union                  Ð the prospective nature of measures adopted further to
                                                                        review investigations, and
                         (Case T-7/99)
                        (1999/C 86/43)
                                                                    Ð the unwarranted bonus' that exporting producers
                                                                        cooperating in the review would receive despite
                (Language of the case: English)                         non-cooperation in the initial investigation.
An action against the Council of the European Union was             Between 3 August 1997 and 6 November 1998 the
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European          applicant paid a total of DEM 1 456 452 in anti-dumping
Communities on 11 January 1999 by Medici Grimm KG,                  duties.
represented by Robert M. MacLean, Solicitor, of Cameron
McKenna and Paul McGarry, with an address for service
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt and
Medernach, 8Ð10 Rue Mathias Hardt.                                  The applicant submits that the contested regulation should
                                                                    be annulled in so far as it fails to grant retroactive effect
                                                                    and reimbursement of the anti-dumping duties paid by the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                         applicant on the following grounds:
Ð partially annul Council Regulation (EC) No 2380/98                Ð The Council infringed a rule of law relating to the
     on the grounds that the Council failed to grant                    application of the EC Treaty by infringing
     retrospective reimbursement of the anti-dumping                    fundamental principles and express provisions of
 ---pagebreak--- C 86/24                EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                 27.3.1999
    Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (4) as well as the           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    relevant provisions of the WTO Anti-Dumping
    Agreement.
                                                                   The Commission accuses the applicants, with other
                                                                   producers of pre-insulated district heating pipes, of
                                                                   participating in a system of agreements in restraint of
Ð The Council failed to respect the principle of                   competition during the period from October 1991 until at
    legitimate expectation.                                        least March or April 1996. The applicants are alleged,
                                                                   inter alia, to have shared the market, agreed prices and
                                                                   manipulated supplies, and to have engaged in concerted
                                                                   practices intended to damage competitors not participating
Ð The Council infringed the principle of proportionallity.         in the cartel.
(1) OJ L  33, 4.2.1997, p. 11.                                     A fine of ECU 4 950 000            was    imposed   on   the
(2) OJ L  208, 2.8.1997, p. 31.                                    Henss/Isoplus Gruppe'.
(3) OJ L  296, 5.11.1998, p. 1.
(4) OJ L  56, 6.3.1996, p. 1.
                                                                   The applicants argue that the Isoplus Fernwärmetechnik
                                                                   GmbH Ð Stille Gesellschaft' referred to in the decision
                                                                   does not have legal personality, is not capable of being a
                                                                   party and cannot therefore properly be an adressee under
                                                                   Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty or a party in a proceeding
                                                                   under Regulation No 17/62. They argue further that the
                                                                   loose Gruppe Henns/Isoplus' is a structure without legal
Action brought on 18 January 1999 by HFB Holding für               personality and thus also not capable of being a party,
Fernwärmetechnik Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH & Co.                with the result that there has been a breach of the
KG and Others against the Commission of the European               essential procedural requirements laid down by Regulation
                           Communities                             No 17/62.
                          (Case T-9/99)
                                                                   The applicants also plead:
                         (1999/C 86/44)
                                                                   Ð infringement of Article 85 of the EC Treaty and
                                                                       Articles 3 and 15 of Regulation No 17/62;
                (Language of the case: German)
                                                                   Ð infringement of the right to a proper hearing and the
                                                                       duty to state reasons, since the statement of objections
An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                       was never served;
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 18 January
1999 by HFB Holding für Fernwärmetechnik Beteiligungs-             Ð infringement of Article 6(2) of the European
gesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, Rosenheim (Germany) and                     Convention on Human Rights and the principle of
four Others, represented by Peter Krömer and Friedrich                 mens rea under Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17/62;
Nusterer, Rechtsanwälte, St Pölten (Austria).
                                                                   Ð infringement of Commission Decision 94/810/ECSC,
                                                                       EC of 12 December 1994 on the terms of reference of
The applicants claim that the Court should:                            hearing officers in competition procedures before the
                                                                       Commission (OJ 1994 L 330, p. 67), and Regulation
                                                                       No 99/63/EEC;
1. annul the Commission's decision of 21 October 1998
    concerning a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC             Ð infringement of the formal requirements of
    Treaty (Case IV/35.691/E-4, Fernwärmetechnik-Kar-                  Articles 3(3) and 4 of Regulation No 99/63/EEC in
    tell), as amended by the Commission's corrective                   conjunction with Article 19 of Regulation No 17/62
    decision of 6 November 1998 (Case IV/35.691 Ð                      and Articles 6 and 7 of Commission Decision
    Vorisolierte Rohre);                                               94/810/ECSC, EC;
                                                                   Ð infringement      of further defence rights, such as
2. reduce the fines imposed on the applicants (or, as the              insufficiently  long periods for the making of
    case may be, the Gruppe Henns/Isoplus') by the above              observations   and failure to provide translation of
    decision;                                                          documents in   foreign languages;
                                                                   Ð infringement of the duty to state reasons under
3. order the Commission to pay the costs.                              Article 190 of the EC Treaty.


title: Case C-50/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Koninie (Poland) lodged on 28 January 2016 — Halina Grodecka; intervening parties: Józef Konieczka and Others

text:
               5.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/8

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Koninie (Poland) lodged on 28 January 2016 — Halina Grodecka; intervening parties: Józef Konieczka and Others
   (Case C-50/16)
   (2016/C 326/15)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring Court

   Sąd Rejonowy w Koninie

      Parties to the main proceedings

   Halina Grodecka; intervening parties: Józef Konieczka and Others
   By order of 2 June 2016, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Tenth Chamber) declared that it manifestly lacks jurisdiction to reply to the question referred for a preliminary ruling by the Sąd Rejonowy w Koninie (Poland).


title: Case F-43/05: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 23 January 2007 — Chassagne v Commission (Officials — Pay — Annual travel expenses — Provisions applicable to officials originating from French overseas departments — Article 8 of Annex VII to the amended Staff Regulations)

text:
               10.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/40

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 23 January 2007 — Chassagne v Commission
   (Case F-43/05) (1)

   (Officials - Pay - Annual travel expenses - Provisions applicable to officials originating from French overseas departments - Article 8 of Annex VII to the amended Staff Regulations)
   (2007/C 56/75)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Olivier Chassagne (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and Y. Minatchy, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Berscheid and V. Joris, Agents)
   Re:
   First, a declaration that Article 8 of Annex VII to the new Staff Regulations concerning the flat-rate payment of travelling expenses is unlawful and therefore inapplicable to the applicant and, secondly, an application for damages
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 205, 20.8.2005, p. 27 (case initially registered before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities under number T-224/05 and transferred to the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union by order of 15.12.2005.


title: Case T-488/09: Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2011 — Jager & Polacek v OHIM (REDTUBE) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark REDTUBE — Earlier unregistered national mark Redtube — Failure to pay the opposition fee within the prescribed period — Decision deeming the opposition non-existent — Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2869/95 — Protection of legitimate expectations — Rule 17 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — Ex parte proceedings — Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 216/96 — Rule 18 of Regulation No 2868/95 — Legal nature of a communication from OHIM informing a party that an opposition has been found to be admissible — Rule of parallelism of procedural requirements and of the actus contrarius — Article 80 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               25.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 186/23

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2011 — Jager & Polacek v OHIM (REDTUBE)
   (Case T-488/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark REDTUBE - Earlier unregistered national mark Redtube - Failure to pay the opposition fee within the prescribed period - Decision deeming the opposition non-existent - Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2869/95 - Protection of legitimate expectations - Rule 17 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Ex parte proceedings - Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 216/96 - Rule 18 of Regulation No 2868/95 - Legal nature of a communication from OHIM informing a party that an opposition has been found to be admissible - Rule of parallelism of procedural requirements and of the actus contrarius - Article 80 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2011/C 186/43
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Jager & Polacek GmbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: A. Renck, V. von Bomhard and T. Dolde, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 September 2009 (Case R 442/2009-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Jager & Polacek GmbH and RT Mediasolutions s.r.o.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Jager & Polacek GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 37, 13.2.2010.


title: Case C-154/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 27 March 2013 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v X B.V.

text:
               22.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/3

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 27 March 2013 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v X B.V.
   (Case C-154/13)
   2013/C 178/05
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Defendant: X B.V.

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 140(a) and (b) of the 2006 VAT Directive (1) be interpreted as meaning that the exemption from VAT for which that provision provides does not apply to the intra-Community acquisition of dental prostheses? If the answer is no, is the application of the exemption subject to the condition that the dental prostheses are supplied from abroad by a dentist and/or dental technician to a dentist or dental technician?

               2.

               If the exemption from VAT (whether or not under the conditions described in Question 1) for which Article 140(a) and (b) of the 2006 VAT Directive provides applies to the intra-Community acquisition of dental prostheses, does the exemption therefore apply in Member States, such as the Netherlands, which have complied with the exemption provided for in Article 132 of the 2006 VAT Directive, to the intra-Community acquisition of dental prostheses originating from a Member State which has taken advantage of the derogating and transitional arrangements for which Article 370 of the 2006 VAT Directive provides?

      (1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC from the Raad of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).


title: Case C-319/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 30 May 2017 — Nisreen Sharqawi and Others v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               18.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 309/24

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 30 May 2017 — Nisreen Sharqawi and Others v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-319/17)
   (2017/C 309/30)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesverwaltungsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Nisreen Sharqawi, Yazan Fattayrji, legally represented by Nisreen Sharqawi, Hosam Fattayrji, legally represented by Nisreen Sharqawi

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the transitional provision contained in the first paragraph of Article 52 of Directive 2013/32/EU (1) preclude the application of national legislation which, in transposition of the power conferred in Article 33(2)(a) of Directive 2013/32/EU, which is more extensive than that conferred in the directive that preceded it, provides that an application for international protection is inadmissible if the applicant has been granted subsidiary protection in another Member State, in so far as the national legislation, in the absence of any national transitional provisions, is applicable even to applications lodged before 20 July 2015?
               In particular, does the transitional provision contained in the first paragraph of Article 52 of Directive 2013/32/EU allow the Member States, in particular, to transpose the extended power conferred in Article 33(2)(a) of Directive 2013/32/EU retroactively, with the result that even applications which were lodged before that extended power was transposed into national law but which were not yet the subject of a final decision at the time of transposition are inadmissible?

               2.

               Does Article 33 of Directive 2013/32/EU confer on the Member States a right to choose whether to reject an application for asylum as inadmissible either on the ground that responsibility lies with another Member State (the Dublin Regulation) or under Article 33(2)(a) of Directive 2013/32/EU?

               3.

               If the answer to Question 2 is in the affirmative, does EU law prevent a Member State from rejecting an application for international protection as inadmissible on the ground that subsidiary protection has been granted in another Member State, in transposition of Article 33(2)(a) of Directive 2013/32/EU, where

                           a)

                           the applicant seeks to have the subsidiary protection granted to him in another Member State enhanced (by the award of refugee status) and the asylum procedure in the other Member State was (and continues to be) vitiated by systemic flaws, or

                           b)

                           the form which the international protection takes, that is to say the living conditions of those benefiting from subsidiary protection, in the other Member State which has already granted the applicant subsidiary protection,

                                       —

                                       infringes Article 4 of the Charter and Article 3 ECHR or

                                       —

                                       does not satisfy the requirements of Article 20 et seq. of Directive 2011/95/EU but does not in and of itself infringe Article 4 of the Charter or Article 3 ECHR?

               4.

               If Question 3b is to be answered in the affirmative, is this also the case where, although the persons benefiting from subsidiary protection do not receive any subsistence benefits at all or those which they do receive are very limited by comparison with those available in other Member States, they are to this extent not treated any differently from nationals of that Member State?

               5.

               If Question 2 is answered in the negative:

                           a)

                           Is the Dublin III Regulation applicable in a procedure for the grant of international protection if the asylum application was lodged before 1 January 2014 but the take back request was not lodged until after 1 January 2014 and the applicant had previously (in February 2013) been granted subsidiary protection in the requested Member State itself?

                           b)

                           Do the Dublin provisions support the inference of an — unwritten — transfer of responsibility to the Member State which has requested that an applicant be taken back, where the requested responsible Member State has refused to grant a take back request made, within the prescribed time limit, under the Dublin provisions and has instead referred to an international readmission agreement?

      (1)  Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection. OJ L 180, 2013, p. 60.


title: Case C-305/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam by decision of that court of 13 July 2004 in the case of Eagle International Freight B.V. against Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst – Douanedistrict Arnhem.

text:
               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/29

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam by decision of that court of 13 July 2004 in the case of Eagle International Freight B.V. against Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst – Douanedistrict Arnhem.
   (Case C-305/04)
   (2004/C 228/61)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by decision of the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam (Amsterdam Regional Court of Appeal) of 13 July 2004, received at the Court Registry on 19 July 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Eagle International Freight B.V. against Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst – Douanedistrict Arnhem on the following question:
   Are Commission Regulation (EC) No 2086/97 (1) of 4 November 1997 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 2261/98 (2) of 26 October 1998, both of which amend Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, valid in so far as they provide that heading 8543 89 79 of the Combined Nomenclature includes the sound cards described at paragraph 2.3 above?

      (1)  OJ L 312 of 14.11.1997, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ L 292 of 30.10.1998, p. 1.


title: Case C-191/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 13 April 2017 — Bundeskammer für Arbeiter und Angestellte v ING-DiBa Direktbank Austria Niederlassung der ING-DiBa AG

text:
               24.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/24

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 13 April 2017 — Bundeskammer für Arbeiter und Angestellte v ING-DiBa Direktbank Austria Niederlassung der ING-DiBa AG
   (Case C-191/17)
   (2017/C 239/29)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberster Gerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Bundeskammer für Arbeiter und Angestellte

      Defendant: ING-DiBa Direktbank Austria Niederlassung der ING-DiBa AG

      Question referred

   Must Article 4(14) of Directive 2007/64/EC (1) on payment services in the internal market (the Payment Services Directive) be interpreted as meaning that an online savings account with which a customer (without notice and without any particular involvement of the bank) may by way of telebanking make deposits into and withdrawals from a reference account (a current account in Austria) held in his name is also to be included within the term ‘payment account’ (Article 4(14) of that directive) and thus falls within the scope of that directive?

      (1)  Directive 2007/64/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on payment services in the internal market amending Directives 97/7/EC, 2002/65/EC, 2005/60/EC and 2006/48/EC and repealing Directive 97/5/EC (OJ 2007 L 319, p. 1).


title: Case C-544/12: Order of the President of the Court of 23 July 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/53

         Order of the President of the Court of 23 July 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-544/12) (1)

   2013/C 344/93
   Language of the case: Polish
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 46, 16.2.2013.


title: Appeal brought on 26 August 1997 by Fernando Carbajo Ferrero against the judgment delivered on 12 June 1997 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-237/95 between Fernando Carbajo Ferrero and the European Parliament (Case C-304/97 P)

text:
18 . 10 . 97             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 318/9
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht                     federal structure lays down that in the case of
für Zivilrechtssachen Wien by order of that court of                          infringements imputable to a part of the State, the
13 August 1997 in the case of Klaus Konle v. Republic of                      injured party may claim only against the part State,
                                Austria                                       not the State as a whole ?
                          ( Case C-302/97)
                            ( 97/C 318/15 )
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundes
European Communities by an order of the Landesgericht                   gerichtshof by order of that court of 26 June 1997 in
für Zivilrechtssachen Wien ( Regional Civil Court, Vienna )             the case of Verbraucherschutzverein e.V. v. Sektkellerei
of 13 August 1997, which was received at the Court                                         G. C. Kessler GmbH & Co.
Registry on 22 August 1997, for a preliminary ruling in                                              ( Case C-303/97
the case of Klaus Konle v. Republic of Austria on the
following questions :                                                                                ( 97/C 318/ 16 )
1 . Does it follow from the interpretation of Articles 6, 52            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     et seq. ( Part Three, Title III, Chapter 2 ) and Article 73b       European Communities by an order of the Bundesgerichts
     et seq. ( Part Three, Title III, Chapter 4 ) of the EC             hof ( Federal Court of Justice ) of 26 June 1997, which was
     Treaty and Article 70 of the Act of Accession ( Act                received at the Court Registry on 25 August 1997, for a
     concerning the conditions of accession of [...] the                preliminary ruling in the case of Verbraucherschutz
                                                                        verein e.V. v. Sektkellerei G. C. Kessler GmbH & Co .
     Republic of Austria [...] and the adjustments to the
     treaties on which the European Union is founded )                  on the following questions on the interpretation of
     that:                                                              Article 13 ( 2 ) ( b ) of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2333/
                                                                        92 of 13 July 1992 laying down general rules for the
                                                                        description and presentation of sparkling wines and
     ( a ) in that, while the Tiroler Grundverkehrsgesetz               aerated sparkling wines ('):
           ( TGVG ) 1993 was in force, the plaintiff was
           required to prove that he would not establish a              ( a ) Does it suffice for the prohibition in Article 13 ( 2 ) ( b )
           holiday residence, whereas in the case of an
                                                                              of the said Regulation to be applicable that a word in
           acquisition by an Austrian a mere declaration
                                                                              a brand name used to describe the sparkling wine ( in
           under Paragraph 10 ( 2 ) would have sufficed to
           obtain    the   consent   of  the  land    transactions
                                                                              this case 'Hochgewächs') may be confused with part
                                                                              of the description of a wine ( in this case ' Riesling-
           authority, and he was refused consent, and                         Hochgewächs') not used for constituting the cuvée of
                                                                              the sparkling wine, even if it is not the case that a
     ( b ) in that, under the TGVG 1996 , the plaintiff, even                 substantial proportion of consumers form mistaken
           before his property right is entered in the land                   impressions as to the composition of the cuvée which
           register, must — as Austrians now also must —                      influence their purchases, and there is no intent to
           undergo a consent procedure, the possibility of                    deceive on the part of the owner of the brand ?
           making an effective declaration that no holiday
           residence is being created no longer existing for            ( b ) If so, may the industrial property which the owner of
           Austrians either,                                                  the brand has acquired by reason of the traditional
                                                                              undisturbed use of his description in Germany, as a
     Community law was infringed and the plaintiff injured                    higher-ranking interest deserving protection, preclude
     in respect of a fundamental freedom guaranteed by                        the application of the prohibition of descriptions in
     provisions of Community law ?                                            Article 13 ( 2 ) ( b ) of the said Regulation ?
                                                                        O OJ L 231 , 13 . 8 . 1992, p . 9 .
2 . If so, is it for the Court of Justice, in proceedings
     under Article 177 of the EC Treaty, also to decide
     whether a breach of Community law is 'sufficiently
     serious' ( as the phrase is used, for example, in the
     judgment in Joined Cases C-46/93 and C-48/93
     Brasserie du Pêcheur and Factortame )?                             Appeal brought on 26 August 1997 by Fernando . Carbajo
                                                                        Ferrero against the judgment delivered on 12 June 1997
                                                                        by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
3 . If Questions 1 and 2 are answered in the affirmative,
                                                                        European Communities in Case T-237/95 between
     is the breach ' sufficiently serious'?
                                                                           Fernando Carbajo Ferrero and the European Parliament
                                                                                ( Case C-304/97 P)
4 . Is the principle of the liability of Member States for
                                                                                ( 97/C 318/ 17 )
     the damage caused to an individual by breaches
     of Community law complied with, on a proper
     interpretation of Article 5 of the EC Treaty, if the               An appeal against the judgment delivered on 12 June 1997
     national law on liability of a Member State with a                 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
 ---pagebreak--- C 318/10            1 EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                             18 . 10 . 97
the European Communities in Case T-237/95 between                           to be used by a taxable person " for the purposes of his
Fernando Carbajo Ferrero and European Parliament was                        taxable transactions ?
brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 26 August 1997 by Fernando Carbajo
Ferrero, represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure               2 . In particular, may the right to deduct be excluded:
Levi, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at Fiduciaire Myson, 30 Rue de Cessange .                        ( a ) even though the cars are essential tools of the
                                                                                business in the sense that the business by definition
The appellant claims that the Court should:                                       would not exist without the cars ( e.g. the car
                                                                                leasing business of the Royscot companies, and the
                                                                                car-leasing and car-hire businesses of the T. C.
— set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of                        Harrison group )?
     the European Communities of 12 June 1997 in Case
     T-237/95 between the same parties,
                                                                            ( b ) even though the cars are never available for
                                                                                private use by the taxable person or his staff
— accordingly, grant the form of order sought by the                              (e.g. , the car-leasing businesses of the Royscot
     applicant at first instance,                                                 companies and of the T. C. Harrison group )?
— order the defendant to pay all the costs, including                       ( c ) even though the taxable person could not carry
     those incurred at first instance .                                           on his business at all without the cars ( e.g. ,
                                                                                'demonstrator' cars acquired by a member of the
                                                                                T. C. Harrison group in its dealership business )?
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                            ( d ) even though the taxable person 's employees could
The appellant maintains all the pleas and arguments of                            not perform their duties without the cars ( e.g. ,
his action and bases the appeal on infringement of                                the travelling salesmen employed by the Allied
Community law by the Court of First Instance . It is based,                       Domecq group )?
further, on a breach of procedure inasmuch as the Court
of First Instance refused to direct the Parliament to
                                                                         . ( e ) notwithstanding ( a ), (c ) or ( d ) above, on the
produce a letter on which the action relied in order to cast
                                                                                ground that the taxable person's employees are
doubt on the impartiality of a member of the selection
board .
                                                                                permitted to make some, subsidiary, private use of
                                                                                the cars outside working hours ?
                                                                     3 . Is it material to question 2 (e ) above to consider
                                                                            whether :
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal,                  ( a ) an apportionment of the expenditure on the cars
London, by order of that court dated 29 July 1997, in the                         can be made between the business use and the
case of 1 . Royscot Leasing Ltd and Royscot Industrial                            private use ?
Leasing Ltd 2 . Allied Domecq pic 3 . T. C. Harrison
 Group Ltd against Commissioners of Customs and Excise                      ( b ) the permission to make private use of the cars is a
                        ( Case C-305/97 )                                         taxable transaction for VAT purposes because the
                          ( 97/C 318/18 )
                                                                                taxable person charges the employees a fee for that
                                                                                use ?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the               4. Did the authorization granted to Member States by
European Communities by an order of the Court of                            the second subparagraph of Article 17 ( 6 ) lapse at the
Appeal, London, dated 29 July 1997, which was received                      end of the four year period referred to in the first
at the Court Registry on 26 August 1997, for a                              subparagraph ?
preliminary ruling in the case of 1 . Royscot Leasing Ltd
and Royscot Industrial Leasing Ltd 2 . Allied Domecq pic
3 . T. C. Harrison Group Ltd against Commissioners of                (') Second Council Directive 67/228/EEC of 11 April 1967 on the
Customs and Excise on the following questions:                             harmonization of legislation of Member States concerning
                                                                           turnover taxes, structure and procedures for application of the
                                                                           common system of value added tax ( OT 71 , 14 . 4 . 1967,
1 . Did Article 11 ( 4 ) of the second Council Directive of                p. 1303 ).
     11 April 1967 ( ! ) authorize Member States to                  ( 2 ) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
                                                                           harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
     introduce or retain, and does the second subparagraph                 turnover taxes — common system of value added tax: uniform
     of Article 17 ( 6 ) of the sixth Council Directive of                 basis of assessment ( OJ L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p. 1 ).
     17 May 1977 (2 ) authorize Member States to retain,
     national laws which exclude, without limit, the right
     to deduct VAT payable on the purchase of motor cars


7.12.2002              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 305/19
        Removal from the register of Case C-124/01 ( 1)                       Removal from the register of Case C-45/02 (1)
                          (2002/C 305/36)                                                      (2002/C 305/39)
By order of 20 September 2002 the President of the Court of           By order of 10 July 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal               of the European Communities ordered the removal from
from the register of Case C-124/01: Commission of the                 the register of Case C-45/02: Commission of the European
European Communities v Italian Republic.                              Communities v Portuguese Republic.
( 1) OJ C 161 of 2.6.2001.
                                                                      (1 ) OJ C 97 of 20.4.2002.
        Removal from the register of Case C-150/01 ( 1)
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-70/02 (1)
                          (2002/C 305/37)
                                                                                (2002/C 305/40)
By order of 30 September 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal               By order of 20 September 2002 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-150/01: Commission of the
                                                                      Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
European Communities v French Republic.
                                                                      from the register of Case C-70/02: Commission of the
                                                                      European Communities v Italian Republic.
( 1) OJ C 173 of 16.6.2001.
                                                                      (1 ) OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.
        Removal from the register of Case C-443/01 ( 1)
                          (2002/C 305/38)                                     Removal from the register of Case C-221/02 ( 1)
                                                                                (2002/C 305/41)
By order of 28 August 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-443/01 (Reference for a preliminary
ruling by the Vestre Landsret): Poul Nørgaard v Skatteminis-          By order of 25 September 2002 the President of the Court of
teriet.                                                               Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                      from the register of Case C-221/02: Commission of the
                                                                      European Communities v French Republic.
( 1) OJ C 31 of 2.2.2002.
                                                                      (1 ) OJ C 180 of 27.7.2002.


title: Case T-393/11: Judgment of the General Court of 14 May 2013 — Masottina v OHIM — Bodegas Cooperativas de Alicante (CA’MARINA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark CA’ MARINA — Earlier Community word mark MARINA ALTA — Relative ground for refusal — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               22.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/9

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 May 2013 — Masottina v OHIM — Bodegas Cooperativas de Alicante (CA’MARINA)
   (Case T-393/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark CA’ MARINA - Earlier Community word mark MARINA ALTA - Relative ground for refusal - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2013/C 178/16
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Masottina SpA (Cornegliano, Italy) (represented by: N. Schaeffer, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Bodegas Cooperativas de Alicante, Coop. V. (Petrel, Spain)

      Re:

   Action seeking the annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 May 2011 (Case R 518/2010-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Bodegas Cooperativas de Alicante, Coop. V. and Masottina SpA.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Masottina SpA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.


title: Case F-83/14: Action brought on 20 August 2014  — ZZ v Commission

text:
               12.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/47

         Action brought on 20 August 2014 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-83/14)
   (2015/C 007/54)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: D. de Abreu Caldas, M. de Abreu Caldas and J.-N. Louis)

      Defendant: Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision not to promote the applicant to grade AST 10 in the European Commission’s 2013 promotion procedure.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 8 November 2013 adopting the list of officials promoted in respect of the 2013 promotion procedure;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 March 2005 in Case T-329/03 Fabio Andrés Ricci v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Competition — Condition for admission — Professional experience — Decisions of the competition selection board — Type of control exercised by the appointing authority — Evaluation of experience — Legitimate expectations)

text:
               28.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 132/27

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 16 March 2005
   in Case T-329/03 Fabio Andrés Ricci v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Officials - Competition - Condition for admission - Professional experience - Decisions of the competition selection board - Type of control exercised by the appointing authority - Evaluation of experience - Legitimate expectations)
   (2005/C 132/48)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case T-329/03: Fabio Andrés Ricci, residing in Turin (Italy), represented by M. Condinanzi, lawyer, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall and H. Tserepa-Lacombe, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for annulment of the decision of the Commission not to appoint the applicant in connection with vacancy notice COM/2001/5265/R — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President, N.J. Forwood and S. Papasavvas, Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 16 March 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 275, 15.11.2003.


title: Case T-369/15: Judgment of the General Court of 17 February 2017 — Hernández Zamora v EUIPO — Rosen Tantau (Paloma) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark Paloma — Earlier EU figurative mark Paloma — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               10.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/34

         Judgment of the General Court of 17 February 2017 — Hernández Zamora v EUIPO — Rosen Tantau (Paloma)
   (Case T-369/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark Paloma - Earlier EU figurative mark Paloma - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 112/46)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Hernández Zamora, SA (Murcia, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Rivas Zurdo and I. Munilla Muños, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Zaera Cuadrado, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Rosen Tantau KG (Uetersen, Germany) (represented by: R. Kunze and G. Würtenberger, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 April 2015 (Case R 1697/2014-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Hernández Zamora and Rosen Tantau.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Hernández Zamora, SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 320, 28.9.2015.


title: Case C-11/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam by judgment of that court of 28 December 2004 in Friesland Coberco Dairy Foods BV (trading under the name Friesland Supply Point Ede) v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane Noord/kantoor Groningen

text:
               2.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/8

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam by judgment of that court of 28 December 2004 in Friesland Coberco Dairy Foods BV (trading under the name Friesland Supply Point Ede) v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane Noord/kantoor Groningen
   (Case C-11/05)
   (2005/C 82/16)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by judgment of the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam (Netherlands) of 28 December 2004, received at the Court Registry on 14 January 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Friesland Coberco Dairy Foods BV (trading under the name Friesland Supply Point Ede) and Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst (Taxation Service)/Douane Noord (Customs North)/kantoor Groningen (Office) on the following questions:

               1.

               How should the words ‘without adversely affecting the essential interests of Community producers of similar goods’ in Article 133(e) [of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (1)] be interpreted? Can only the market for the finished product be considered or must the economic situation with regard to the raw materials for processing under customs control also be investigated?

               2.

               In relation to the assessment of the ‘processing activities to be created or maintained’ under Article 502(3) [of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Regulation No 2913/92 (2)], is there a specific number of jobs which must, as a minimum, be made possible by the activities? What other criteria also apply to the interpretation of the cited text?

               3.

               In the light of the answers to questions 1 and 2, can the Court of Justice examine the validity of a conclusion of the Committee in preliminary ruling proceedings?

               4.

               If so, is the conclusion in this case valid with respect to both the reasons and the economic arguments adduced?

               5.

               If the Court of Justice cannot examine the validity of a conclusion, what interpretation should then be given to the words ‘[t]he Committee's conclusion shall be taken into account by the customs authorities’ in Article 504(4) [of Regulation No 2454/93 (3)] if – in the first instance – the customs authorities and/or – on appeal – the national courts consider that the Committee's conclusion cannot justify the rejection of the application for processing under customs control?

      (1)  OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1.

      (3)  Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EC) No 993/2001 of 4 May 2001 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Custom Code (OJ 2001 L 141, p. 1).


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 September 2004 in Case T-183/03: Applied Molecular Evolution Inc v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Word mark APPLIED MOLECULAR EVOLUTION — Absolute grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Descriptive sign)

text:
               20.11.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 284/16

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 14 September 2004
   in Case T-183/03: Applied Molecular Evolution Inc v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Word mark APPLIED MOLECULAR EVOLUTION - Absolute grounds for refusal - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Descriptive sign)
   (2004/C 284/34)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case T-183/03: Applied Molecular Evolution Inc., established in San Diego, California (United States), represented by A. Deutsch, laywer, and by M. Weber-Quitzau, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: H. Nokkanen and A. Folliard-Monguiral) — action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 March 2003 (Case R 108/2002-2) upholding the refusal to register APPLIED MOLECULAR EVOLUTION as a word mark — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President, A.W.H. Meij and N. J. Forwood, Judges; I. Natsinas, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 September 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 184 of 2.8.2003.


title: Case C-136/02 P: Appeal brought on 11 April 2002 by Mag Instrument, Inc. against the judgment delivered on 7 February 2002 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-88/00 between Mag Instrument, Inc. and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
C 144/22                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      15.6.2002
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Gerechtshof                           No 000206698 and No 000206870 pursuant to Article 7
(Douanekamer) te Amsterdam by judgment of that Court                            of the Community Trade Mark Regulation;
of 2 April 2002 in the case of Hoogenboom Production
    Ltd. against head of the Roosendaal Customs district
                                                                          —     annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of
                                                                                14 February 2000 in Cases R 0237/1999-2, R 0238/
                          (Case C-134/02)                                       1999-2, R 0239/1999-2, R 0240/1999-2 and R 0241/
                                                                                1999-2;
                          (2002/C 144/37)
                                                                          —     order the respondent to pay the costs.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Gerechtshof
(Douanekamer) te Amsterdam (Amsterdam Regional Court of
Appeal) Customs Chamber of 2 April 2002, received at the                  Pleas and main arguments
Court Registry on 10 April 2002, for a preliminary ruling in
the case of Hoogenboom Production Ltd. against head of the
Roosendaal Customs district on the following question:                    —     Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC)
                                                                                No 40/94 (2): the Court of First Instance does not deal in
The question is identical to Case C-133/02.                                     its judgment with the overall signs in respect of which
                                                                                registration is sought but rather, as a result of a divided
                                                                                analysis, bases its examination on signs which are not
(1) See p. 21 of the present Official Journal.                                  those in respect of which the applications were made.
                                                                          —     Incorrect evaluation of evidence running counter to the
                                                                                principles of logic: the facts and evidence which the Court
                                                                                of First Instance expressly did not consider and which
                                                                                relate solely to distinctiveness of origin were wrongly not
                                                                                taken into account by the Court on the ground that they
Appeal brought on 11 April 2002 by Mag Instrument, Inc.                         relate only to distinctiveness resulting from use and the
against the judgment delivered on 7 February 2002 by the                        Court thereby acted illogically. However, even in the case
Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                            of facts and evidence with respect to which it cannot be
European Communities in Case T-88/00 between Mag                                excluded that they relate, inter alia, to distinctiveness
Instrument, Inc. and the Office for Harmonisation in the                        resulting from use, there is much to support the view that
         Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)                              the distinctiveness does not result only from use but,
                                                                                rather, that it already existed originally. Obviously, only a
                                                                                good design will be imitated.
                         (Case C-136/02 P)
                                                                          —     Infringement of the right to a hearing (Article 6(2) of the
                          (2002/C 144/38)
                                                                                EU Treaty in conjunction with Article 6 ECHR, first
                                                                                indent of Article 41(2) of the EU Charter of Fundamental
                                                                                Rights): the Court of First Instance did not deal in
                                                                                a concrete manner with the wide variety of shapes
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 7 February 2002                     demonstrated by the facts and evidence submitted by the
by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of                         appellant and clearly failed to analyse sufficiently the
the European Communities in Case T-88/00 between Mag                            submitted material relating to original distinctiveness.
Instrument, Inc. and the Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (1) was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                —     Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94:
11 April 2002 by Mag Instrument, Inc., represented by                           the Court of First Instance erred in law in holding that
A. Nette, G. Rahn, W. von der Osten-Sacken and H. Stratmann                     the accepted public view — that is, the actual perception
of the lawyers’ office Hoffmann Eitle in Munich.                                by consumers — cannot be considered in the context of
                                                                                Article 7(1)(b) but, rather, exclusively in the context of
                                                                                Article 7(3).
The appellant claims that the Court should:
—     set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of            —     Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94:
      the European Communities of 7 February 2002 in Case                       the Court of First Instance failed to make any findings of
      T-88/00, holding that there are no absolute grounds for                   fact of its own with respect to the issues of whether, as it
      refusal to register the Community trade mark applications                 simply presumed in a general manner, the shapes are in
      No 000139527, No 000119552, No 000206789,                                 fact common, the consumer is accustomed to the shapes
 ---pagebreak--- 15.6.2002              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 144/23
     in respect of which registration is sought, the same type                income-based jobseeker’s allowance to a person in the
     of goods are commonly found in the trade and the nature                  circumstances of the claimant in the present case?
     of the marks influences the perception of the marks by
     the targeted public.
—    Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94:            (1) on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (OJ
     the requirements imposed by the Court of First Instance                L 257, 19.10.1968, p. 2) (SE SER 1 68(II), p. 475).
     with respect to distinctiveness are too stringent.                 (2) on the abolition of restrictions on movement and residence within
                                                                            the Community for workers of Member States and their families
                                                                            (OJ L 257, 19.10.1968, p. 13) (SE SER 1 68(II), p. 485).
—    Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94:
     the Court of First Instance imposes incorrect requirements
     with respect to distinctiveness which are not provided for
     in the Regulation by presuming, without any factual
     basis, that the existence — assumed by it — of ‘a wide
     variety of designs’ and the average consumer’s familiarity
     with shapes similar to those at issue influence distinc-
     tiveness.
(1) Not yet published in the European Court Reports.
(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
    Community trade mark, OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1.
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the House of Lords,
                                                                        by order of that court dated 17 December 2001, in the
                                                                        case of Regina against Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries
                                                                        and Food, Ex parte: S.P. Anastasiou (Pissouri) Limited and
                                                                        others, Interveners: Cypfruvex (UK) Ltd, Cypfruvex Fruit
                                                                                and Vegetable (Cypfruvex) Enterprises Ltd
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Social Security
Commissioners, London, by order dated 28 March 2002,
in the case of Brian Francis Collins against Secretary of                                          (Case C-140/02)
                  State for Work and Pensions
                          (Case C-138/02)                                                          (2002/C 144/40)
                         (2002/C 144/39)
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by an order of the House of Lords
European Communities by an order of the Social Security
                                                                        dated 17 December 2001, which was received at the Court
Commissioners, London, dated 28 March 2002, which was
                                                                        Registry on 16 April 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case
received at the Court Registry on 12 April 2002, for a
                                                                        of Regina against Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food,
preliminary ruling in the case of Brian Francis Collins and
                                                                        Ex parte: S.P. Anastasiou (Pissouri) Limited and others, Inter-
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on the following
                                                                        veners: Cypfruvex (UK) Ltd, Cypfruvex Fruit and Vegetable
questions:
                                                                        (Cypfruvex) Enterprises Ltd, on the following questions:
1.   Is a person in the circumstances of the claimant in the
     present case a worker for the purposes of Regulation               1.    Whether, where citrus fruit originating in one third
     No 1612/68 (1) of the Council of 15 October 1968?                        country has been shipped to another third country, the
                                                                              special requirement that the packaging shall bear an
2.   If the answer to question 1 is not in the affirmative, does              appropriate origin mark pursuant to item 16.1 of
     a person in the circumstances of the claimant in the                     Annex IVA of Directive 77/93/EEC, now Directive 2000/
     present case have a right to reside in the United Kingdom                29/EC (1), can only be fulfilled in the country of origin or
     pursuant to Directive No 68/360 (2) of the Council of                    whether it may alternatively be fulfilled in such other
     15 October 1968?                                                         third country?
3.   If the answers to both questions 1 and 2 are not in the
     affirmative, do any provisions or principles of European           2.    Whether the official statement required by items 16.2 to
     Community law require the payment of a social security                   16.4 of Directive 2000/29/EC as to the country of origin
     benefit with conditions of entitlement like those for                    must be made by an official in the country of origin or


title: Case C-293/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Ireland made on 11 June 2012 — Digital Rights Ireland Ltd v Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, The Commissioner of the Garda Síochána, Ireland and the Attorney General

text:
               25.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 258/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Ireland made on 11 June 2012 — Digital Rights Ireland Ltd v Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, The Commissioner of the Garda Síochána, Ireland and the Attorney General
   (Case C-293/12)
   2012/C 258/18
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Ireland

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Digital Rights Ireland Ltd

      Defendants: Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, The Commissioner of the Garda Síochána, Ireland and the Attorney General

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the restriction on the rights of the Plaintiff in respect of its use of mobile telephony arising from the requirements of Articles 3, 4, and 6 of Directive 2006/24/EC (1) incompatible with Article 5.4 TEU in that it is disproportionate and unnecessary or inappropriate to achieve the legitimate aims of:

                           (a)

                           Ensuring that certain data are available for the purposes of investigation, detection and prosecution of serious crime?
                           and/or

                           (b)

                           Ensuring the proper functioning of the internal market of the European Union?

               2.

               Specifically,

                           (i)

                           Is Directive 2006/24/EC compatible with the right of citizens to move and reside freely within the territory of Member States laid down in Article 21 TFEU?

                           (ii)

                           Is Directive 2006/24/EC compatible with the right to privacy laid down in Article 7 of the Charter and Article 8 ECHR?

                           (iii)

                           Is Directive 2006/24/EC compatible with the right to the protection of personal data laid down in Article 8 of the Charter?

                           (iv)

                           Is Directive 2006/24/EC compatible with the right to freedom of expression laid down in Article 11 of the Charter and Article 10 ECHR?

                           (v)

                           Is Directive 2006/24/EC compatible with the right to Good Administration laid down in Article 41 of the Charter?

               3.

               To what extent do the Treaties — and specifically the principle of loyal cooperation laid down in Article 4.3 of the Treaty on European Union -require a national court to inquire into, and assess, the compatibility of the national implementing measures for Directive 2006/24/EC with the protections afforded by the Charter of Fundamental Rights, including Article 7 thereof (as informed by Article 8 of the ECHR)?

      (1)  Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC
   OJ L 105, p. 54


title: Case C-526/06: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 December 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — The Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Road Air Logistics Customs BV (Community Customs Code and implementing regulation — Community transit — Offence — Proof of the regularity of the transit operation or of the place of the offence — Failure to grant a period of three months in which to furnish such proof — Repayment of customs duties — Concept of legally owed )

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/24

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 December 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — The Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Road Air Logistics Customs BV
   (Case C-526/06) (1)

   (Community Customs Code and implementing regulation - Community transit - Offence - Proof of the regularity of the transit operation or of the place of the offence - Failure to grant a period of three months in which to furnish such proof - Repayment of customs duties - Concept of ‘legally owed’)
   (2008/C 51/39)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Respondent: Road Air Logistics Customs BV
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Article 236 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) and of Article 379 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1) — Reimbursement or remission of customs duties — Amount not legally owed — Determination of the place in which the customs debt was incurred
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 236(1), first subparagraph, of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code must be interpreted to mean that the failure of the national customs authorities to determine, in accordance with Article 379 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92, the place where the customs debt was incurred does not have the effect of rendering the amount of customs duties not legally owed.
   Nevertheless, the Member State to which the office of departure belongs can proceed to recovery of import duties only if, pursuant to Article 379(2) of Regulation No 2454/93, it has first informed the principal that it has a period of three months in which to furnish proof of the place where the infringement or the irregularity was actually committed and such proof has not been provided within that period.

      (1)  OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 13 January 1995 in Case T-524/93: Humphrey Hennessy and Others v. Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (Partial removal from the register)

text:
No C 87/10            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     8 . 4 . 95
the European Social Fund's contribution to Project No                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
860012/P1 , relating to vocational training carried out by the                              of 8 March 1995
applicants in 1986, was legally non-existent prior to 10 July        in Case T-493/93 : Hansa-Fisch GmbH v. Commission of
1991 and is void since that date and for an order that the
Commission pay the final balance of the Community                                    the European Communities (*)
contribution claimed under Project No 860012/P1 — the                (Fisheries — EEC-Morocco Agreement — Issue oflicences
Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of J. L.           — Act of Accession of Spain and Portugal — Relative
Cruz Vilaça, President, H. Kirschner and A.                                      stability — Legitimate expectations)
Kalogeropoulos,        Judges;     J.    Palacio     Gonzalez,                                  ( 95/C 87/22 )
Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on
7 March 1995, in which it:
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
1 . declares void the Commission 's Decision reducing the
    amount of the European Social Fund's contribution to             In Case T-493/93 : Hansa-Fisch GmbH, established at
    Project No 860012/P1 , relating to vocational training in        Schenefeld,       Germany,        represented initially       by
    Portugal in 1986;                                                Heinrich-Werner Goltz, then by Rafael Barber-Llorente,
                                                                     Rechtsanwalte, Hamburg, against the Commission of the
                                                                     European Communities (Agents: T. van Rijn and U.
2. dismisses the remainder of the application;                       Wölker) — application for the annulment of the
                                                                     Commission's decision refusing to submit the applicant's
3 . orders the Commission to pay all the costs.                      request for a fishing licence to the Moroccan authorities in
                                                                     accordance with Annex I to the Agreement on relations in
(M OJ No C 291 , 8 . 11 . 1991 .                                     the sea fisheries sector between the European Economic
                                                                     Community and the Kingdom of Morocco, as approved by
                                                                     Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2054/88 of 23 June 1988 (2 )
                                                                     and by Council Regulation (EEC ) No 3954/92 of
                                                                     19 December 1992 ( 3 ) — the Court of First Instance (Fourth
                                                                     Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President, R.
                                                                     Schintgen and R. Garcia-Valdecasas, Judges, H. Jung,
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              Registrar, gave a judgment on 8 March 1995 , in which
                       of 8 March 1995                               it:
in Case T-34/93 : Société Générale v. Commission of the
                  European Communities (*)                           1 . dismisses the application;
(Competition — Decision requiring information pursuant
to Article 11 (5) of Regulation No 17 — Statement of                 2. orders the applicant to pay the costs.
              reasons — Rights of the defence)
                          ( 95/C 87/21 )                             (!) OJ No C 231 , 27. 8 . 1993 .
                                                                     (2) OJ No L 181 , 12. 7. 1988, p. 1 .
               (Language of the case: French)                        (3 ) OJ No L 407, 31 . 12 . 1992, p. 1 .
In Case T-34/93 : Societe Generale, established in Paris,
represented by Robert Saint-Esteben, of the Paris Bar, with
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue, against the Commission of the
European Communities (Agents: E. Traversa and H.                          ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Lehman) — application for (i ) the annulment of the
Commission's decision of 1 April 1993 relating to a                                       of 13 January 1995
proceeding pursuant to Article 11 ( 5 ) of Regulation No 17          in Case T-524/93 : Humphrey Hennessy and Others v.
and (ii ) compensation for the loss which the applicant claims       Council of the European Union and Commission of the
to have suffered as a result of that decision — the Court of                           European Communities (*)
First Instance ( Fourth Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts,                        (Partial removal from the register)
President, R. Schintgen and R. Garcia-Valdecasas, Judges,                                       ( 95/C 87/23
H. Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on 8 March 1995 , in
which it:
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
I. dismisses the application;
                                                                     In Case T-524/93 : Humphrey Hennessy, residing in
2. orders the applicant to bear the costs.                           Timoleague (Ireland ), and the other milk producers whose
                                                                     names appear in an Annex to the order, represented by
                                                                     James O'Reilly SC, of the Bar of Ireland, and Philippa
(!) OJ No C 188 , 10 . 7. 1993 .                                     Watson, Barrister-at-Law, instructed by Oliver
                                                                     Ryan-Purcell, Solicitor, with an address for service in
                                                                     Luxembourg at Fyfe Business Centre, 29 Rue Jean-Pierre
 ---pagebreak--- 8 . 4 . 95              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 87/11
Brasseur, against the Council of the European Union                    1 . the names of Patrick Nash and of the other milk
(Agents: A. Brautigam and M. Bishop) and the Commission                      producers named in the Annex to this order shall be
of the European Communities (Agents: D. Boofi, C.                            removed from the list of applicants in Case T-525/93,
Docksey and H. J. Rabe ) — application for compensation,                     except that of Patrick Griffin;
under Article 178 and the second paragraph of Article 215
of the EC Treaty, for the damage which the applicants
consider they have suffered as a result of the application of          2 . each party is to bear its own costs.
Council Regulation (EEC ) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984
adopting general rules for the application of the levy referred        i 1 ) OJ No C 328 , 4 . 12 . 1993 .
to in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC ) No 804/68 in the milk            (2 ) OJ No L 90, 1 . 4 . 1984, p. 13 .
and milk products sector (2 ) — the President of the Court of
First Instance made an order on 13 January 1995 , the
operative part of which is as follows:
1 . the names of Humphrey Hennessy and of the other milk
      producers named in the Annex to this order shall be
      removed from the list of applicants in Case T-524/93,                  ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
      except that of Terry Wall;
                                                                                of 13 January 1995
                                                                       in Case T-538/93 : Patrick Houlihan and Others v. Council
2. each party is to bear its own costs.                                of the European Union and Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities (M
(!) OJ No C 319, 26 . 11 . 1993 .                                                     (Partial removal from the register)
(2 ) OJ No L 90, 1 . 4 . 1984, p . 13 .                                                             ( 95/C 87/25 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                       In Case T-538/93 : Patrick Houlihan, residing in Dungarvan
                                                                        (Ireland), and the other milk producers whose names appear
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             in the Annex to the order, represented by James O'Reilly SC,
                                                                       of the Bar of Ireland, and Philippa Watson,
                        of 13 January 1995
                                                                       Barrister-at-Law, instructed by Oliver Ryan-Purcell,
in Case T-525/93 : Patrick Nash and Others v. Council of               Solicitor, with an address for service in Luxembourg at Fyfe
the European Union and Commission of the European                      Business Centre, 29 Rue Jean-Pierre Brasseur, against the
                          Communities i 1 )                            Council of the European Union (Agents: A. Brautigam and
                (Partial removal from the register)                    M. Bishop ) and the Commission of the European
                            ( 95/C 87/24                               Communities (Agents: D. Boofi, C. Docksey and H. J. Rabe )
                                                                       — application for compensation, under Article 178 and the
                                                                       second paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty, for the
                  (Language of the case: English)                      damage which the applicants consider they have suffered as
                                                                       a result of the application of Council Regulation ( EEC )
                                                                       No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting general rules for the
In Case T-525/93 : Patrick Nash residing in Newcastle West             application of the levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation
 ( Ireland ), and the other milk producers whose names appear           (EEC ) No 804/68 in the milk and milk products sector ( 2 ) —
in the Annex to the order, represented by James O'Reilly SC,           the President of the Court of First Instance made an order on
of the Bar of Ireland, and Philippa Watson,                             13 January 1995 , the operative part of which is as
Barrister-at-Law, instructed by Oliver Ryan-Purcell,                    follows:
 Solicitor, with an address for service in Luxembourg at Fyfe
Business Centre, 29 Rue Jean-Pierre Brasseur, against the
 Council of the European Union (Agent: A. Brautigam) and                1 . the names of Patrick Houlihan and of the other milk
the Commission of the European Communities (Agents: D.                       producers named in the Annex to this order shall be
 BooS, C. Docksey and H. J. Rabe ) — application for                          removed from the list of applicants in Case T-538/93,
compensation, under Article 178 and the second paragraph                      except that of John Harris;
 of Article 215 of the EC Treaty, for the damage which the
 applicants consider they have suffered as a result of the
 application of Council Regulation (EEC ) No 857/84 of                  2. each party is to bear its own costs.
 31 March 1984 adopting general rules for the application of
 the levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation ( EEC )               (!) OJ No C 319, 26 . 11 . 1993 .
 No 804/68 in the milk and milk products sector ( 2) — the              (2) OJ No L 90, 1 . 4. 1984, p. 13 .
President of the Court of First Instance made an order on
 13 January 1995, the operative part of which is as
follows:


title: Case C-362/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial de Santa Maria da Feira (Portugal) lodged on 8 July 2011 — Serafim Gomes Oliveira v Lusitânia Companhia de Seguros SA

text:
               24.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/9

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial de Santa Maria da Feira (Portugal) lodged on 8 July 2011 — Serafim Gomes Oliveira v Lusitânia Companhia de Seguros SA
   (Case C-362/11)
   2011/C 282/17
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal Judicial de Santa Maria da Feira

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Serafim Gomes Oliveira

      Defendant: Lusitânia Companhia de Seguros SA

      Question referred

   Is the provision of Portuguese law requiring compensation to be reduced in proportion to the fault of both parties in the accident in question, which occurred in November 2006 between a bicycle and a passenger vehicle with compulsory motor insurance, consistent with Community law, even though the cyclist was less than 20 % at fault?


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Sø- og Handelsret by order of that court of 31 October 1997 in the case of Upjohn SA, Danmark v. Paranova A/S (Case C-379/97)

text:
C 387/ 12                 EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  20 . 12 . 97
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the So- og                          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the President of the
Handelsret by order of that court of 31 October 1997 in                   Arrondissementsrechtbank, The Hague, by order of
         the case of Upjohn SA, Danmark v. Paranova A/S                   4 November 1997 in the case of Emesa Sugar ( Free
                            Case C-3 79/97                                Zone ) NV and 1 . Kingdom of the Netherlands, 2 . The
                                                                          Netherlands State, 3 . The Netherlands Antilles and
                             ( 97/C 387/19 )                                                           4 . Aruba
                                                                                Case C-380/97 )
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                              ( 97/C 387/20 )
European Communities by order of the So- og Handelsret
( Maritime and Commercial Court ) of 31 October 1997,
which was received at the Court Registry on 6 November
1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Upjohn SA,                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Danmark v. Paranova A/S on the following questions:                       European Communities by interlocutory judgment of the
                                                                          President of the Arrondissementsrechtbank, The Hague, of
                                                                          4 November 1997, received at the Court Registry on
1 . Do Article 7 of Council Directive 89/104/EEC (') of                   6 November 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
        21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the                   Emesa Sugar ( Free Zone ) NV and 1 . Kingdom of the
        Member States relating to trade marks and/or                      Netherlands, 2 . The Netherlands State , 3 . The
        Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty preclude the                  Netherlands Antilles and 4 . Aruba on the following
        proprietor of a trade mark from relying on its right              questions:
        under    national  trade-mark     law   as  the   basis  for
        opposing a third party's purchasing a pharmaceutical
        product in a Member State, repackaging it in that
        third party's own packaging, to which it affixes trade            1 . Is it compatible with the EC Treaty, in particular
                                                                              Part IV thereof, for provisions such as those referred
        mark X belonging to the trade-mark proprietor, and
                                                                              to in the second paragraph of Article 136 of the
        marketing the product in another Member State, in
        the case where the pharmaceutical product in question
                                                                              Treaty to include quantitative restrictions on imports
                                                                              or measures having equivalent effect ?
        is marketed by the trade-mark proprietor or with its
        consent in the Member State of purchase under trade
        mark Y and an identical pharmaceutical product is
        marketed by the trade-mark proprietor or with its                 2 . Is the answer to that question different
        consent in the abovementioned second Member State
        under trade mark X ?
                                                                              a.   if those restrictions or measures are in the form of
                                                                                tariff quotas or limitations to the provisions
2 . Does it have any bearing on the reply to Question 1                            relating to origin or a combination of the two; or
        whether the trade-mark proprietor's use of different
        trade marks in the country in which the importer
        purchases the product and in that in which the                        b . if the provisions in question comprise safeguard
        importer sells the product is attributable to subjective                   measures or not ?
        circumstances particular to the trade-mark proprietor ?
        If the answer is yes, is the importer required to adduce
        evidence that the use of different trade marks is or was
        intended artificially to partition the markets ( reference        3 . Does it follow from the EC Treaty, in particular
        is made in this connection to the Court's judgment of                 Part IV thereof, that for the purposes of the second
        10    October   1978       in Case   3/78   Centrafarm    v.          paragraph of Article 136, the experience acquired —
        American Home Products Corporation ( 2 ))?                            in the form of measures favourable to the OCT —
                                                                              may not subsequently be reviewed or annulled to the
                                                                              detriment of the OCT ?
3 . Does it have any bearing on the reply to question 1
        whether the trade-mark proprietor's use of different
        trade marks in the country in which the importer
        purchases the product and in that in which the                        If that is indeed the case, can individuals then rely on
        importer sells the product is attributable to objective               it in proceedings before the national court ?
        circumstances outwith the control of the trade-mark
        proprietor, including, in particular, requirements of
        national health authorities or the trade-mark rights of           4 . To what extent-must the 1991 OCT Decision ( 91 /482/
        third parties ?                                                       EEC, OJ L 263 , 19 . 9 . 1991 , p. 1 ; corrigendum in OJ
                                                                              L 15 , 23 . 1 . 1993 , p. 33 ) be deemed to apply without
(') OJ L 40 , 11 . 2 . 1989 , p . 1 .                                         amendment during the 10 year period referred to in
( 2 ) [ 1978 ] ECR 1823 .                                                     Article 240 ( 1 ) thereof, given that the Council did not
                                                                              amend that decision before the expiry of the first
                                                                              ( period of) 5 years referred to in Article 240 ( 3 )
                                                                              thereof ?