title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'Appel de Grenoble (Chambre Commerciale), by judgment of that court of 13 January 1999 in the case of Echirolles Distributions SA v Association du Dauphiné, Association des Libraires de Bandes Dessinées, Patrick Corbet and Union des Libraires de France (Case C-9/99)

text:
C 71/20              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  13.3.1999
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'Appel           to run only when the assurance policy, the policy
de Grenoble (Chambre Commerciale), by judgment of that             conditions, and the consumer information required by
court of 13 January 1999 in the case of Echirolles                 Paragraph 10a of the Versicherungsaufsichtsgesetz (Law
Distributions SA v Association du DauphineÂ, Association           on the Supervision of Insurance Companies) are fully
des Libraires de Bandes DessineÂes, Patrick Corbet and             available to the policy-holder, and, upon delivery of the
               Union des Libraires de France                       assurance policy, he was informed in writing, in clear
                                                                   printed form, about the right of withdrawal, the
                        (Case C-9/99)
                                                                   commencement of the period and its duration, and where
                       (1999/C 71/33)                              it is incumbent upon the insurer to prove receipt of the
                                                                   documents, and the posting of the withdrawal in good
                                                                   time is sufficient to constitute observance of the time-limit,
                                                                   but, notwithstanding this, the right of withdrawal expires
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the             one year after payment of the first premium?
European Communities by judgment of the Cour d'Appel
de Grenoble (Chambre Commerciale) (Court of Appeal,
Grenoble Ð Commercial Chamber) of 13 January 1999,
which was received at the Court Registry on 18 January
1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Echirolles
Distributions SA v Association du DauphineÂ, Association
des Libraires de Bandes DessineÂes, Patrick Corbet and
Union des Libraires de France.                                     Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arbeitsgericht
                                                                   Siegen by order of that court of 7 January 1999 in the
                                                                    case of Margrit Dietrich against Westdeutscher Rundfunk
The Cour d'Appel de Grenoble (Chambre Commerciale)                                         (Case C-11/99)
asks the Court of Justice to rule on the question whether
the French legislation requiring publishers to impose on                                   (1999/C 71/35)
booksellers fixed prices for the resale of books, regardless
of their contents, to consumers and to business purchasers
is compatible with the internal market established on
1 January 1993, und in particular with Articles 3(c) and           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
(g), 3a and 5, the second paragraph of Article 7a and              European Communities by order of the Arbeitsgericht Sie-
Articles 102a and 103(3) and (4) of the Treaty establishing        gen (Labour Court, Siegen) of 7 January 1999, received at
the European Economic Community, as amended by the                 the Court Registry on 18 January 1999, for a preliminary
Single European Act and the Treaty on European Union.              ruling in the case of Margrit Dietrich v Westdeutscher
                                                                   Rundfunk on the following questions:
                                                                   1. On a proper interpretation of Article 2(a) of Council
                                                                        Directive 90/270/EEC of 29 May 1990 on the
                                                                        minimum safety and health requirements for work
                                                                        with display screen equipment (1), does graphic
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht,
                                                                        display' within the meaning of that provision also
Munich, by order of that court of 16 December 1998 in
                                                                        include the replay of film clips on monitors?
  the case of Feiler v Karlsruher Lebensversicherungs-AG
                       (Case C-10/99)
                       (1999/C 71/34)                              2. If not, does graphic display' within the meaning of
                                                                        Article 2(a) of Council Directive 90/270/EEC include
                                                                        the replay of video data files on monitors, which
                                                                        include film clips in digitalised form?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Amtsgericht
(Local Court), Munich, of 16 December 1998, which was
                                                                   3. If either Question 1 or Question 2 is answered in the
received at the Court Registry on 18 January 1999, for a
                                                                        affirmative, must Article 1(3)(a) of Council Directive
preliminary ruling in the case of Feiler v Karlsruher
                                                                        90/270/EEC be interpreted as meaning that control
Lebensversicherungs-AG on the following question:
                                                                        cabs for . . . machinery' within the meaning of that
                                                                        provision includes a workstation at which analogue or
                                                                        digitalised picture material is processed with the
May Article 31(1) of the Third Life Assurance Directive                 assistance of technical installations or computer
(Directive 92/96/EEC, OJ L 360, 9.12.1992, p. 1) be                     programmes?
interpreted as meaning that it is sufficient for the
information listed in point A of Annex II not to be
communicated to the policy-holder before the assurance             (1) OJ L 156, 21.6.1990, p. 14.
contract is concluded, but for him merely to be granted a
right of withdrawal, which is to be exercised in writing
within 14 days, in circumstances where that period begins


title: Action brought on 27 January 1995 by Josef Blum against Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (Case T-14/95)

text:
25 . 3 . 95           EN                  Official Journal -of the European Communities                              No C 74/15
his application for the three posts in question was adopted in        Pleas in law and main arguments
breach of the order of priority laid down in Article 29 of the
Regulations and in point 6 of the vacancy notice, which               The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in
specifically stated that the appointing authority would               Case T-20/94 .
consider whether the posts could be filled by transfer
according to priority.
The applicant also points out that the appointing authority
breached the vacancy notice by selecting candidates by
reference to criteria other than those appearing in the said          Action brought on 6 February 1995 by Gerd Kühle against
notice . He points out that the appointing authority                  Council of the European Union and Commission of the
expressly acknowledged that it had made its choice from                                 European Communities
among agents with occupational experience as messengers                                     ( Case T-16/95 )
who already occupied such posts .
                                                                                ( 95/C 74/29
Furthermore, the applicant considers that the contested
decision is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment and was                      (Language of the case: German)
adopted in breach of the gurantees given under Article 45 of
the Regulations.                                                      An action against the Council of the European Union and
                                                                      Commission of the European Communities was brought
Finally, the applicant alleges that the defendant failed, even        before the Court of First Instance of the European
when giving a reply expressly rejecting his complaint, to             Communities on 6 February 1995 by Gerd Kühle, Berge
provide the information which would enable him to                     ( Federal Republic of Germany), represented by Bernd
ascertain whether the contested decision was valid .                  Meisterernst, Mechtild Düsing, Dietrich Manstetten, Frank
                                                                      Schulze and Winfried Haneklaus, Rechtsanwälte, Munster,
                                                                      with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
                                                                      of Dupong & Associés, 14a Rue des Bains .
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                      1 . order the defendants jointly to pay to the applicant
Action brought on 27 January 1995 by Josef Blum against                    SLOM I compensation for the period from 7 May 1986
Council of the European Union and Commission of the                       to 29 March 1989 in the amount of DM 8 952,80,
                    European Communities                                  together with interest thereon at 8 % from 1 9 May
                                                                           1992, and jointly to pay the costs of the proceedings;
                         ( Case T-14/95 )
                            95/C 74/28                                2 . join the present action to that already pending in Case
                                                                          T-77/93 Hülseberg and Others v. Council and
                                                                           Commission and also stay the proceedings .
               (Language of the case: German)
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments
An action against the Council of the European Union and
Commission of the European Communities was brought                    The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in
before the Court of First Instance of the European                    Case T-20/94 .
Communities on 27 January 1995 by Josef Blum, Hallschlag
(Federal Republic of Germany), represented by Bernd
Meisterernst, Mechtild Düsing, Dietrich Manstetten, Frank
Schulze and Winfried Haneklaus, Rechtsanwälte, Munster,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
of Dupong & Associés, 14a Rue des Bains.                              Action brought on 6 February 1995 by Spyridoulia
                                                                      Alexopoulou against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                                (Case T-17/95 )
 1 . order the defendants jointly to pay to the applicant                                      ( 95/C 74/30 )
     SLOM III compensation for the period from 19 October
     1985 to 29 July 1993 in the amount of DM 29 355,23 ,                            (Language of the case: French)
     together with interest thereon at 8% from 19 May
     1992, and jointly to pay the costs of the proceedings;           An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities was brought before the Court of First
2 . join the present action to that already pending in Case           Instance of the European Communities on 6 February 1995
     T-77/93 Hülseberg and Others v. Council and                      by Spyridoulia Alexopoulou, residing in Brussels (Belgium),
     Commission and also stay the proceedings .                       represented by Constantin Nikis, of the Brussels Bar, with


title: Case C-218/11: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 18 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Ítélőtábla — Hungary) — Észak-dunántúli Környezetvédelmi és Vízügyi Igazgatóság (Édukövízig), Hochtief Construction AG Magyarországi Fióktelepe, now Hochtief Solutions AG Magyarországi Fióktelepe v Közbeszerzések Tanácsa Közbeszerzési Döntőbizottság (Directive 2004/18/EC — Public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts — Articles 44(2) and 47(1)(b), (2) and (5) — Economic and financial standing of tenderers — Minimum capacity established on the basis of a single accounting indicator — Accounting indicator liable to be influenced by divergences between national laws as regards annual company accounts)

text:
               8.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 379/8

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 18 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Ítélőtábla — Hungary) — Észak-dunántúli Környezetvédelmi és Vízügyi Igazgatóság (Édukövízig), Hochtief Construction AG Magyarországi Fióktelepe, now Hochtief Solutions AG Magyarországi Fióktelepe v Közbeszerzések Tanácsa Közbeszerzési Döntőbizottság
   (Case C-218/11) (1)

   (Directive 2004/18/EC - Public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts - Articles 44(2) and 47(1)(b), (2) and (5) - Economic and financial standing of tenderers - Minimum capacity established on the basis of a single accounting indicator - Accounting indicator liable to be influenced by divergences between national laws as regards annual company accounts)
   2012/C 379/13
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Fővárosi Ítélőtábla

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Észak-dunántúli Környezetvédelmi és Vízügyi Igazgatóság (Édukövízig), Hochtief Construction AG Magyarországi Fióktelepe, now Hochtief Solutions AG Magyarországi Fióktelepe

      Defendant: Közbeszerzések Tanácsa Közbeszerzési Döntőbizottság

      Intervening parties: Vegyépszer Építő és Szerelő Zrt, MÁVÉPCELL Kft

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Fővárosi Ítelőtábla — Interpretation of Articles 44(2), 47(1)(b), 47(3) and 47(5) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114) — Examination of economic and financial standing of tenderers on the basis of a single accounting indicator with a different content in different Member States because of the divergences between national laws as regards accounting rules — Principle of equal treatment for tenderers

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Articles 44(2) and 47(1)(b) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts must be interpreted as meaning that a contracting authority may require a minimum level of economic and financial standing by reference to one or more particular aspects of the balance sheet, provided that those aspects are such as to provide information on such standing of an economic operator and that that level is adapted to the size of the contract concerned in that it constitutes objectively a positive indication of the existence of a sufficient economic and financial basis for the performance of that contract, without, however, going beyond what is reasonably necessary for that purpose. The requirement of a minimum level of economic and financial standing cannot, in principle, be disregarded solely because that level relates to an aspect of the balance sheet regarding which there may be differences between the legislations of the different Member States.

               2.

               Article 47 of Directive 2004/18 must be interpreted as meaning that where an economic operator cannot meet a minimum level of economic and financial standing consisting in a requirement that the profit/loss item in the balance sheet of candidates or tenderers should not be negative for more than one of the last three completed financial years, because of an agreement under which that economic operator systematically transfers its profits to its parent company, that operator has no other option, in order to meet that minimum capacity level, than to rely on the capacities of another entity, in accordance with Article 47(2). It is irrelevant in that regard that the legislation of the Member State of establishment of that economic operator and that of the Member State of establishment of the contracting authority differ in that such an agreement is authorised without limitation by the legislation of the first Member State whereas, under the legislation of the second, it would only be authorised on condition that the transfer of profits does not have the effect of making the profit/loss item in the balance sheet negative.

      (1)  OJ C 232, 6.8.2011.


title: Case T-473/08: Action brought on 28 October 2008 — Apollo Group v OHIM (THINKING AHEAD)

text:
               10.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/38

         Action brought on 28 October 2008 — Apollo Group v OHIM (THINKING AHEAD)
   (Case T-473/08)
   (2009/C 6/76)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Apollo Group, Inc. (Phoenix, United States) (represented by A. Jaeger-Lenz and A. Link, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 August 2008 in case R 728/2008-2, and

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘THINKING AHEAD’ for goods and services in classes 9, 16 and 41

      Decision of the examiner: Partial rejection of the application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal erred in its finding that the trade mark concerned is devoid of any distinctive character.


title: Case T-205/06: Action brought on 31 July 2006 — NewSoft Technology v OHIM — Soft (Presto! BizCard Reader)

text:
               30.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 237/10

         Action brought on 31 July 2006 — NewSoft Technology v OHIM — Soft (Presto! BizCard Reader)
   (Case T-205/06)
   (2006/C 237/18)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant: NewSoft Technology Corporation (Taipei, Taiwan) (represented by: M. Dirksen-Schwanenland, lawyer)

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

      Other party/parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Soft, S.A.
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 19 May in Case R 601/2005, notified on 30 May 2006;

               —

               Rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity of the registration of European Community trade mark No 002625457 ‘Presto! BizCard Reader’ made by Soft, S.A., Spain.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought:‘Presto! BizCard Reader’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16 and 42 (Community trade mark No 2625457).

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant.

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity: SOFT, S.A.

      Trade mark right of applicant for the declaration: Spanish figurative marks ‘Presto’ for goods and services in Classes 9 and 42.

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark.

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

      Pleas in law: Breach of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), since it is not established that there is a likelihood of confusion between the conflicting trade marks.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova - Sezione prima civile - by order of that court of 30 March 1995 in the case of Igino Mazzola SpA v. Ministero delle Finanze dello Stato (Case C-148/95)

text:
No C 189/ 10              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     22 . 7 . 95
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      6 . If the answer to questions 3 and 5 is in the affirmative, is
                                                                             a widower who does not receive a pension and other
— Time limit for instituting proceedings : the Court of First                survivor's benefits on the basis of that provision (Article
    Instance departed from Community law by finding that,                    9 ( 1 ) ( a) ofLaw No 4491/1966 ) entitled toapension and
    notwithstanding the fact that a decision was notified to                 survivor's benefits under the same conditions as those
    the applicants, the time limit for instituting proceedings               laid down for widows ?
    provided for in Article 173 of the Treaty had begun to
    run for the applicants only from the moment when they
    had '. . . sufficient knowledge of the reasons for the
    Commission's decision'.
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di
                                                                         Genova — Sezione prima civile — by order of that court of
— Infringement of Community law: the Commission                          30 March 1995 in the case of Igino Mazzola SpA v.
    considers that the obligation arising from Article 6 of                               Ministero delle Finanze dello Stato
    Regulation (EEC ) No 2950/83 i 1 ) must be interpreted in
    the specific context of the many and necessarily close                                         (Case C-148/95 )
    contacts between the Commission and the Portuguese                                               ( 95/C 189/18 )
    authorities .
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Cour^ of Justice of the
(M OJ No L 289 , 22 . 10 . 1983 , p . 1 .
                                                                         European Communities by an order of the Tribunale di
                                                                         Genova, Sezione prima civile ( District Court, Genova, First
                                                                         Civil Section ) of 30 March 1995 , which was received at the
                                                                         Court Registry on 12 May 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in
                                                                         the case of Igino Mazzola SpA v . Ministero delle Finanze
                                                                         dello Stato ( State Finance Minister ) on the same questions as
                                                                         in Case C-92/95 ( M.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Dioikitiko Efetio
( Administrative Court of Appeal), Athens, by a decision of              (M OJ No C 137, 3 . 6 . 1995 .
that court of 30 March 1995 in the case of Dimosia
       Epicheirisi Ilectrismou ( DEI) v. E. Evrenopoulos
                            ( Case C-147/95 )
                              ( 95/C 189/17                              Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
                                                                         Administratif, Amiens ( Second Chamber) by judgment of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   that court of 20 April 1995 in the case of Michel Macon,
European Communities by a decision of the Administrative                 Monique Macon, Philippe Macon, Jacqueline Sauvrezy
Court of Appeal, Athens, of 30 March 1995 , which was                    and Pascal Macon against the Prefect of the Aisne
received at the Court Registry on 12 May 1995 , for a                                                  Department
preliminary ruling in the case of Dimosia Epicheirisi                                              ( Case C-152/95 )
Ilectrismou ( DEI ) ( Public Electricity Company ) v . E.                                            ( 95/C 189/19
Evrenopoulos on the following questions :
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
1 . Is the DEI insurance scheme as described in paragraph 2              European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal
     of the decision an occupational or a statutory                      Administratif (Administrative Court ), Amiens ( Second
     scheme ?                                                            Chamber) of 20 April 1995, which was received at the Court
                                                                         Registry on 15 May 1995 , for a preliminarty ruling in the
2 . Does Article 1 19 of the EC Treaty or Directive 79/7/EEC             case of Michel Macon, Monique Macon, Philippe Macon,
     apply to the scheme, in particular to the survivors '               Jacqueline Sauvrezy and Pascal Macon against the Prefect of
     benefits for which it provides ?                                    the Aisne Department on the question set out below.
3 . Is Article 9 ( 1 ) ( a ) of Greek Law No 4491 / 1966 contrary        The Tribunal Administratif, Amiens ( Second Chamber) asks
     to Article 119 of the EC Treaty ?                                   the Court of Justice to give a ruling on the following
                                                                         question :
4 . Is its maintenance in force permitted by any other
     Community provision ?                                               Must Article 2 of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1637/91 of
                                                                         13 June 1991 fixing compensation with regard to the
5 . Does Article 119 of the EC Treaty apply to the case in               reduction of the reference quantities referred to in Article 5c
     point in the light of Protocol 2 to the EEC Treaty and the          of Regulation ( EEC ) No 804/68 and compensation for
     fact that the respondent brought his original action                the definitive discontinuation of milk production i 1 ) be
     before 17 May 1990, that is to say on 12 June 1989 , but            interpreted as precluding the grant of compensation for
     that action was, however, dismissed by Decision                     definitive discontinuation of milk production to a farmer
     No 8361 / 1990 of the Administrative Court of First                 who, while not producing milk, none the less at the time the
     Instance , Athens, because no objection had been lodged             application is made possesses milk reference quantities, by
     ( quasi-judicial action) against the decision of the                virtue of direct sales in particular ?
     Director of the Staff Insurance, and in the decision a time
                                                                         (!) OJ No L 150, 15 . 6 . 1991 , p . 30 .
     limit of three months was allowed for lodging such an
     objection ?


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber) of 17 September 1998 in Case T-40/98: Giuliano Pagliarani v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Determination of grade - New facts - Not permissible)

text:
C 340/22             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   7.11.98
at Cesena (Italy), represented by Carlo Piccoli and                 1. the application is dismissed as inadmissible.
Fabrizio Fabbri, of the Forlì-Cesena Bar, and FrancËois
Turk, of the Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service            2. the applicant shall bear the whole of the costs.
in Luxembourg at the latter's Chambers, 13a Avenue
Guillaume, v. Commission of the European Communities                (1) OJ C 137 of 2.5.1998.
(Agent: Francesco P. Ruggeri Laderchi) Ð application for
partial annulment of Commission Regulation (EC)
No 1488/97 of 29 July 1997 amending Council
Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 on organic production of
agricultural products and indications referring thereto on
                                                                                ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 202 of
                                                                              OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
30.7.1997, p. 12) Ð the Court of First Instance (First
Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, and                                      of 12 August 1998
R. M. Moura Ramos and P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung,                 in Case T-42/98 R: Maria Paola Sabbatucci v. European
Registrar, made an order on 9 September 1998, the                                              Parliament
operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                    (Application for interim measures Ð Amicable settlement
                                                                    Ð Binding nature Ð Mandatory removal from the
1. the application is dismissed as inadmissible;
                                                                                register Ð Conditions)
                                                                                (98/C 340/44)
2. the applicants are to pay the costs.                                             (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                    In Case T-42/98 R: Maria Paola Sabbatucci, an official of
(1) OJ C 387 of 20.12.1997.                                         the European Parliament, residing in Luxembourg,
                                                                    represented by Alberto Dal Ferro and Andrea Cevese, of
                                                                    the Vicenza Bar, with an address for service at the
                                                                    Chambers of Mr Morresi, 67 Avenue des Nerviens,
                                                                    Brussels, v. European Parliament (Agents: Antonio Caiola
                                                                    and Evelyn Waldherr) Ð application for interim measures
                                                                    made pursuant to Article 91(4) of the Staff Regulations of
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                           officials of the European Communities and in accordance
                      (Fourth Chamber)                              with Articles 185 and 186 of the EC Treaty Ð the
                                                                    President of the Court of First Instance made an order on
                    of 17 September 1998                            12 August 1998, the operative part of which is as follows:
in Case T-40/98: Giuliano Pagliarani v. Commission of               1. Case T-42/98 R is removed from the register.
                the European Communities (1)
                                                                    2. The costs are reserved.
(Officials Ð Determination of grade Ð New facts Ð Not
                         permissible)
                        (98/C 340/43)
               (Language of the case: French)                       Action brought on 23 July 1998 by Dolores Rodriguez
                                                                    PeÂrez, Francisco Andrada Sanz, Pablo FernaÂndez Ruiz,
                                                                    Fabriciano Corchete Vicente, Antonio Oliva EspanÄol,
In Case T-40/98: Giuliano Pagliarani, member of the                 Miguel Alay Marcos, Geraldine O'Shea, Ana Luisa
temporary staff of the Commission of the European                   Muller, Alfonso Novoa Diz, Ernesto PeÂrez Carbonell,
Communities, residing in Brussels, represented by Mario             Alfredo Escribano Martínez, Soledad Blanco Mangudo,
Spandre and Claudio Mereu, of the Brussels Bar, with an             Enrique Rojas de Montis, Joan Antoni Salmurri Trintxet,
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Mr             Federica Burel Louberry, Elena Frutos Zamarrón, Rafael
Thielen, 21 rue de Nassau, against Commission of the                Aguirre Unceta, Manuel Parejo Pagador, Pablo Pardo
European Communities (Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia and                Ortiz, Santiago Vazquez Souto, Concepción Sanmartín
Christine Berardis-Kayser) Ð application for, first, the            Quintela, Saturnino DuraÂn Vidal, Luis Guembe Casi and
annulment of the decision of the appointing authority of            Alfonso Ruiz de AzuÂa CastanÄo against the Commission of
28 October 1993 classifying the applicant in Grade B 3                                the European Communities
step 3 and of the decision of the appointing authority of                                  (Case T-114/98)
8 December 1997 rejecting the applicant's complaint
                                                                                (98/C 340/45)
inasmuch as it does not take account of certified
professional experience and, secondly, a claim for                                 (Language of the case: Spanish)
compensation for material damage allegedly suffered by
the applicant as a result of those decisions Ð the Court of         An action against the Commission of the European
First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: P. Lindh,             Communities was brought before the Court of First
President, K. Lenaerts and J. D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung,            Instance of the European Communities on 23 July 1998
Registrar, made an order on 17 September 1998, the                  by Dolores Rodriguez PeÂrez, Francisco Andrada Sanz,
operative part of which is as follows:                              Pablo FernaÂndez Ruiz, Fabriciano Corchete Vicente,


title: Case F-77/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 11 April 2016 — Zink v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — Expatriation allowance — Administrative error meaning that no expatriation allowance was paid for a number of years — Adversely affecting act — Salary statements not reflecting a decision — Article 82 of the Rules of Procedure — Absolute bar to proceedings — Irregularity of the pre-litigation procedure — Application within the meaning of Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations — Reasonable time)

text:
               30.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 191/49

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 11 April 2016 — Zink v Commission
   (Case F-77/15) (1)

   ((Civil Service - Officials - Expatriation allowance - Administrative error meaning that no expatriation allowance was paid for a number of years - Adversely affecting act - Salary statements not reflecting a decision - Article 82 of the Rules of Procedure - Absolute bar to proceedings - Irregularity of the pre-litigation procedure - Application within the meaning of Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations - Reasonable time))
   (2016/C 191/70)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Richard Zink (Bamako, Mali) (represented by: J.-N. Louis and N. de Montigny, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T.S. Bohr and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of the decision to limit the retroactive payment of the expatriation allowance to a period of five years from the date on which the failure to pay that allowance was discovered and an order against the defendant to pay default interest.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Richard Zink to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 245, 27.7.2015, p. 51.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 June 1999 in Case C-376/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht): Bezirksregierung Lüneburg v Karl-Heinz Wettwer (Special premium for beef producers - Obligation to keep cattle on the applicant's holding for a minimum period - Transfer of the holding during that period by way of anticipated succession inter vivos - Effect on entitlement to the premium)

text:
C 246/2                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          28.8.1999
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         (Second Chamber)
                           of 10 June 1999                                                          (Sixth Chamber)
in Case C-376/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht): Bezirksregierung                                                  of 7 June 1999
               Lüneburg v Karl-Heinz Wettwer (1)
(Special premium for beef producers — Obligation to keep
cattle on the applicant’s holding for a minimum period —                   in Case C-75/97: Kingdom of Belgium v Commission of
Transfer of the holding during that period by way of                                        the European Communities (1)
anticipated succession inter vivos — Effect on entitlement to
                             the premium)
                           (1999/C 246/02)                                 (State aid — Definition — Increased reductions in social
                                                                           security contributions in certain industrial sectors — Maribel
                                                                                bis/ter scheme)
                    (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                                                   (1999/C 246/03)
In Case C-376/97: Reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Bundesverwaltungs-
gericht (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
pending before that court between Bezirksregierung Lüneburg                                    (Language of the case: Dutch)
and Karl-Heinz Wettwer on the interpretation of certain
provisions of Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 of the Council of
27 June 1968 on the common organisation of the market in
beef and veal (OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (I), p. 187), as
amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 571/89 of 2 March                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
1989 (OJ 1989 L 61, p. 43), Council Regulation (EEC) No                                       in the European Court Reports)
468/87 of 10 February 1987 laying down general rules
applying to the special premium for beef producers (OJ 1987
L 48, p. 4) and Commission Regulation (EEC) No 714/89 of
20 March 1989 laying down detailed rules applying to the                   In Case C-75/97: Kingdom of Belgium (Agents: Gerwin van
special premium for beef producers (OJ 1989 L 78, p. 38) —                 Gerven and Koen Coppenholle) v Commission of the European
the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: G. Hirsch, Presi-                 Communities (Agents: Gérard Rozet and Wouter Wils) —
dent of the Chamber, G.F. Mancini and R. Schintgen (Rappor-                application for annulment of Commission Decision 97/239/EC
teur), Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,            of 4 December 1996 concerning aid granted by Belgium under
has given a judgment on 10 June 1999, in which it has ruled:               the Maribel bis/ter scheme (OJ 1997 L 95, p. 25) — the
                                                                           Court, composed of: P.J.G. Kapteyn, President of the Chamber,
Article 4a(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 of the Council of 27           G. Hirsch (Rapporteur), G.F. Mancini, H. Ragnemalm and
June 1968 on the common organisation of the market in beef and             R. Schintgen, Judges; A. La Pergola, Registrar; D. Louterman-
veal, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 571/89 of 2                Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
March 1989, in conjunction with the provisions of Council Regu-            judgment on 17 June 1999, in which it:
lation (EEC) No 468/87 of 10 February 1987 laying down general
rules applying to the special premium for beef producers and
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 714/89 of 20 March 1989                     1. Dismisses the application;
laying down detailed rules applying to the special premium for beef
producers, is to be interpreted as meaning that, where an agricultural
holding is transferred by way of ‘vorweggenommene Erbfolge’                2. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
(anticipated succession inter vivos) during the currency of the
undertakings given by an applicant for the 1991 special premium
for beef producers, entitlement to that premium does not pass to the
new owner, even though the latter has satisfied the conditions laid        (1) OJ C 131 of 26.4.1997.
down with regard to the keeping and fattening of the herd.
(1) OJ C 7 of 10.1.1998.


title: Case T-125/02: Action brought on 17 April 2002 by Papierfabrik August Koehler AG against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 144/60               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     15.6.2002
Action brought on 17 April 2002 by Papierfabrik August                   other cases in which the Commission took a crisis situation
Koehler AG against Commission of the European Com-                       into account as a mitigating circumstance. The Commission
                             munities                                    further failed to take into account, and recognise by a reduction
                                                                         of the fine, the applicant’s cooperation with the Commission
                                                                         during the procedure.
                         (Case T-125/02)
                        (2002/C 144/116)                                 Finally, the applicant submits that the Commission did not
                                                                         make the entire documentation of the investigation available
                                                                         to the applicant. The applicant’s right to a fair hearing was
                   (Language of the case: German)                        thereby infringed.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 17 April 2002 by Papierfabrik
August Koehler AG, of Oberkirch (Germany), represented by
I. Brinker, lawyer.                                                      Action brought on 18 April 2002 by Zanders Feinpapiere
                                                                           AG against Commission of the European Communities
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Case T-126/02)
—     Annul the Commission’s decision of 20 December 2001
      in Case COMP/E-1/36.212 — Carbonless paper;                                                 (2002/C 144/117)
—     In the alternative, reduce the fine imposed by Article 3 of                           (Language of the case: German)
      the decision;
—     Order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 18 April 2002 by Zanders Feinpa-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          piere AG, of Bergisch Gladbach (Germany), represented by
                                                                         J. Burrichter and M. Wirtz, lawyers.
By the contested decision the Commission found that the
applicant and ten other undertakings had infringed                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty and Article 53(1) of the EEA              — Annul Article 3 of the Commission decision of 20 Decem-
Agreement by taking part in a number of agreements and                         ber 2001 in Case COMP/E-1/36.212 — Carbonless paper,
concerted practices in the carbonless paper sector, in connec-                 in so far as it imposes a fine of EUR 29,76 million on the
tion with which they decided on concerted price increases,                     applicant;
allocated sales quotas, determined market shares and estab-
lished a system for supervision of the anti-competitive agree-           —     In the alternative, reduce the fine imposed on the
ments.                                                                         applicant by Article 3 of the decision;
                                                                         —     Order the Commission to pay the costs.
The applicant concedes that it took part in such a cartel, but
only from October 1993. It further submits that in determining
the fine the Commission did not take proper account of the
size of the undertakings concerned. In terms of economic                 Pleas in law and main arguments
capability, the applicant was hit much harder by the fine
imposed than the other undertakings fined. The Commission
thereby infringed the principle of proportionality.                      By the contested decision the Commission found that the
                                                                         applicant and ten other undertakings had infringed
                                                                         Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty and Article 53(1) of the EEA
The applicant further submits that, although the applicant was           Agreement by taking part in a number of agreements and
occasioned to take part in the cartel by threats, the Commission         concerted practices in the carbonless paper sector, in connec-
refused to regard that as a mitigating circumstance. Moreover,           tion with which they decided on concerted price increases,
the Commission did not take note of the fact that the applicant          allocated sales quotas, determined market shares and estab-
was occasioned to take part in the cartel as a result of a specific      lished a system for supervision of the anti-competitive agree-
crisis situation. Therein lay unequal treatment compared to              ments.


27.3.1999             EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 86/7
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landgericht              The applicant claims that the Court should:
Regensburg by order of that court of 16 December 1998
in the Business registry case relating to Firma Wiesenhof
   Geflügelspezialitäten, a branch of Lohmann & Co. AG             Ð declare that, by failing to adopt the necessary laws,
                                                                        regulations and administrative provisions to transpose
                        (Case C-5/99)
                                                                        Article 11 of European Parliament and Council
                       (1999/C 86/12)                                   Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on
                                                                        packaging and packaging waste (1), the Kingdom of
                                                                        Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
                                                                        directive;
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Landgericht
Regensburg (Regional Court, Regensburg) of 16 December             Ð order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
1998, received at the Court Registry on 7 January 1999,
for a preliminary ruling in the commercial register case
relating to Firma Wiesenhof Geflügelspezialitäten, a               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
branch establishment of Lohmann & Co. AG, on the
following questions:
                                                                   Subject to certain exceptions in Article 11(2) and
                                                                   Article (3), Article 11 of Directive 94/62/EC provides that
(a) Are Articles 10 and 12 of Directive 69/335/EEC (1) to          Member States are to ensure that the sum of concentration
    be interpreted as meaning that the terms duties' and          levels of lead, cadmium, mercury and hexavelant
    duties paid by way of fees or dues' extend to fees            chromium present in packaging or packaging components
    payable by citizens for registration of a company in           does not exceed:
    the commercial register by a Court of a Member
    State?
                                                                   Ð 600 ppm by weight 2 years after the date referred to
                                                                        in Article 22(1);
(b) If Articles 10 and 12 of Directive 69/335/EEC are held
    to apply to fees demanded by courts:
                                                                   Ð 250 ppm weight 3 years after the date referred to in
                                                                        Article 22(1);
    Are Articles 10 and 12 of Directive 69/335/EEC to be
    interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as
    Sections 32 and 79 ff of the German Court Fee Rules,           Ð 100 ppm weight 5 years after the date referred to in
    requiring payment of a fee for registration of a                    Article 22(1).
    company in the commercial register, which increases
    proportionally to the company's share capital, with no
    upper limit, and in this case amounts to                       The date referred to in Article 22(1) is 30 June 1996.
    DEM 34 910,00 to register a branch establishment of
    a company?
                                                                   It is not disputed, nor can it be disputed, that the
                                                                   Kingdom of Belgium has not adopted any measure to
(1) OJ L 249, 3.10.1969, p. 25.                                    transpose the provisions of Article 11 of the directive into
                                                                   its domestic law.
                                                                   (1) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994, p. 10.
Action brought on 19 January 1999 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                            Belgium
                       (Case C-14/99)                              Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht
                                                                   Bremen by order of that court of 4 August 1998 in the
                       (1999/C 86/13)                              case of Hans Sommer GmbH & Co against Hauptzollamt
                                                                                Bremen
                                                                                (Case C-15/99)
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                                   (1999/C 86/14)
on 19 January 1999 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Götz zur Hausen, Legal
Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,               European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht Bre-
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                          men (Finance Court, Bremen) of 4 August 1998, received


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 19 May 1998 in Case C-3/96: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands, supported by the Federal Republic of Germany (Conservation of wild birds - Special protection areas)

text:
C 234/8               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      25.7.98
refund of money paid over, a situation in which the                       markets. In that regard, the capacity in which the
purchaser of a package holiday who has paid the travel                    Member State grants aid under Council Regulation
organiser for the costs of his accommodation before                       (EEC) No 1765/92 of 30 June 1992 establishing a
travelling on his holiday is compelled, following the travel              support system for producers of certain arable crops,
organiser's insolvency, to pay the hotelier for his                       the fact that the rules of that Member State on set-off
accommodation again in order to be able to leave the                      require, for set-off to be available, reciprocity of debts
hotel and return home.                                                    as between debtor and creditor, the practice generally
                                                                          followed by the Member State regarding set-off and
(1) OJ C 9 of 11.1.1997.                                                  the legal basis of the debt to the State involved in the
                                                                          set-off are of no importance, provided that the
                                                                          national authorities ensure that the effectiveness of
                                                                          Community law is not in any way undermined and
                                                                          that economic operators enjoy equal treatment. It is
                                                                          for the national court to determine whether that is the
                                                                          case.
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       of 19 May 1998                                2. On a proper construction of Article 15(3) of
                                                                          Regulation No 1765/92, Member States are not
in Case C-132/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                 precluded from requiring a national intervention
the éstre Landsret): Bent Jensen and Korn- og                             agency to effect set-off with debts payable to the State
Foderstofkompagniet A/S v Landbrugsministeriet, EF-                       in the case of a beneficiary of compensatory payments.
                        Direktoratet (1)
(Community law Ð Principles Ð Set-off of amounts paid                3. On a proper construction of Article 10(1) of
under Community law against debts payable to a Member                     Regulation No 1765/92, payment of the compensatory
State Ð Common agricultural policy Ð Regulation (EEC)                     payments to which it refers may be deferred until it
No 1765/92 Ð Support system for producers of certain                      has been verified whether the State has any claim
                          arable crops)                                   against the beneficiary thereof for which set-off may
                         (98/C 234/14)                                    be available, provided that the payment is made no
                                                                          later than 31 December in the year in question.
                (Language of the case: Danish)                       (1) OJ C 189 of 22.7.1995.
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-132/95: reference to the Court under Article 177                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
of the EC Treaty from the éstre Landsret (Eastern                                            of 19 May 1998
Regional Court) (Denmark), for a preliminary ruling in
the proceedings pending before that court between Bent               in Case C-3/96: Commission of the European
Jensen and Korn- og Foderstofkompagniet A/S and                      Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands, supported by
Landbrugsministeriet, EF-Direktoratet Ð on the                                    the Federal Republic of Germany (1)
interpretation of Community law with regard to set-off                  (Conservation of wild birds Ð Special protection areas)
between amounts paid under Community law and debts
payable to a Member State and of Articles 10(1) and                                           (98/C 234/15)
15(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1765/92 of 30 June
1992 establishing a support system for producers of                                  (Language of the case: Dutch)
certain arable crops (OJ L 181 of 1.7.1992, p. 12) Ð the
Court, composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President,
C. Gulmann, M. Wathelet (Presidents of Chambers),                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
G. F. Mancini (Rapporteur), J. C. Moitinho de Almeida,                         published in the European Court Reports)
J. L. Murray, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and L. Sevón,
Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate General; H. von Holstein,
Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment            In Case C-3/96: Commission of the European
on 19 May 1998, in which it has ruled:                               Communities, represented by W. Wils, v Kingdom of the
                                                                     Netherlands, represented by M. A. Fierstra and J. S. van
                                                                     den Oosterkamp, supported by the Federal Republic of
1. Community law does not preclude a Member State                    Germany, represented by E. Röder and S. Maaû Ð
     from effecting set-off between an amount due to a               application for a declaration that, by failing sufficiently to
     beneficiary of aid payable under Community                      designate special protection areas within the meaning of
     legislation and an outstanding debt to that Member              Article 4(1) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April
     State. The position would be different only if that             1979 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ L 103 of
     practice were to interfere with the proper functioning          25.4.1979, p. 1), the Kingdom of the Netherlands has
     of the common organisation of the agricultural                  failed to comply with its obligations under that directive
 ---pagebreak--- 25.7.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 234/9
and Articles 5 and 189 of the EC Treaty Ð the Court,                 interpretation of Article 21 of that Convention (OJ L 304
composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President,                    of 30.10.1978, p. 36), as amended by the Convention of
C. Gulmann, (Rapporteur), H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet                  9 October 1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of
and R. Schintgen, Presidents of Chamber, J. C. Moitinho              Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great
de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray, D. A. O.                 Britain and Northern Ireland (OJ L 304 of 30.10.1978,
Edward, G. Hirsch and P. Jann, Judges; N. Fennelly,                  p. 1; amended version of the Convention, p. 77) and the
Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has             Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the
given a judgment on 19 May 1998, in which it:                        Hellenic Republic (OJ L 388 of 31.12.1982, p. 1) Ð the
                                                                     Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann,
                                                                     President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet, J. C. Moitinho de
1. Declares that, by classifying as special protection areas
                                                                     Almeida, D. A. O. Edward, (Rapporteur) and L. Sevón,
     territories whose number and total area are clearly
                                                                     Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,
     smaller than the number and total area of the
                                                                     Principal Administrator for the Registrar, has given a
     territories suitable for classification as special
                                                                     judgment on 19 May 1998, in which it has ruled:
     protection areas within the meaning of Article 4(1) of
     Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the
     conservation of wild birds, the Kingdom of the
     Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under          Article 21 of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on
     that directive;                                                 Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil
                                                                     and Commercial Matters, as amended by the Convention
                                                                     of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of
2. Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the                  Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great
     costs;                                                          Britain and Northern Ireland and by the Convention of
                                                                     25 October 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic
3. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its                Republic, is not applicable in the case of two actions for
     own costs.                                                      contribution to general average, one brought by the
                                                                     insurer of the hull of a vessel which has foundered against
                                                                     the owner and the insurer of the cargo which the vessel
(1) OJ C 77 of 16.3.1996.                                            was carrying when it sank, the other brought by the latter
                                                                     two parties against the owner and the charterer of the
                                                                     vessel, unless it is established that, with regard to the
                                                                     subject-matter of the two disputes, the interests of the
                                                                     insurer of the hull of the vessel are identical to and
                                                                     indissociable from those of its insured, the owner and the
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                charterer of that vessel.
                       (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                     (1) OJ C 370 of 7.12.1996.
                       of 19 May 1998
in Case C-351/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Cour de Cassation, France): Drouot Assurances SA v
Consolidated Metallurgical Industries (CMI Industrial
Sites), Protea Assurance, Groupement d'InteÂreÃt EÂcono-
             mique (GIE) ReÂunion EuropeÂenne (1)
(Brussels Convention Ð Interpretation of Article 21 Ð Lis                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
alibi pendens Ð Definition of same parties Ð Insurance                                      (Fifth Chamber)
                   company and its insured)
                                                                                of 28 May 1998
                        (98/C 234/16)
                                                                     in Case C-7/95 P: John Deere Ltd v Commission of the
                 (Language of the case: French)                                        European Communities (1)
                                                                     (Appeal Ð Admissibility Ð Question of law Ð Question
                                                                     of fact Ð Competition Ð Information exchange system Ð
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                     Restriction of competition Ð Refusal to grant an
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                exemption)
In Case C-351/96: reference to the Court, pursuant to the                                    (98/C 234/17)
Protocol of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the
Court of Justice of the Convention of 27 September 1968
on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil                           (Language of the case: English)
and Commercial Matters, by the Cour de Cassation,
France, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
pending before that court between Drouot Assurances SA               In Case C-7/95 P: John       Deere Ltd, a company whose
and Consolidated Metallurgical Industries (CMI Industrial            registered office is in      Edinburgh (United Kingdom),
Sites),     Protea    Assurance,     Groupement       d'InteÂreÃt    represented by Hans-Jörg     Niemeyer and Rainer Bechtold,
EÂconomique (GIE) ReÂunion EuropeÂenne Ð on the                      Rechtsanwälte, Stuttgart,    with an address for service in


title: Action brought on 18 December 1998 by Yannis Tzikis against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-203/98)

text:
C 71/30               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                13.3.1999
invalid. In the alternative, it argues that most of the delays       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
were either caused by the Commission, or cases of force
majeure, so that, even if the clauses are considered valid,
                                                                     The applicant states that the contested decision removing
the amount of the deductions made by the Commission
                                                                     him from his post is based on the complaint that he took
should be reduced.
                                                                     part in internal competition COM/B/18/96 with prior
                                                                     knowledge of the subject-matter of some of the tests and
                                                                     without informing the selection board in advance that he
The applicant also seeks an order that the Commission
                                                                     possessed that knowledge. He accepts that complaint, but
pay it interest in respect of delay, since the final payment
                                                                     maintains that the contested decision disregarded the
for the supplies was not made within the period prescribed
                                                                     reasoned opinion of the Disciplinary Board, which
in the agreements.
                                                                     proposed merely the temporary suspension, for a period of
                                                                     two years, of his entitlement to advancement to a higher
                                                                     step.
Finally, it submits that when the agreements were put into
effect, the Commission questioned the Community origin
of some of the tools and halted their manufacture at the             The applicant puts forward the following pleas in support
time, which caused it to incur considerable additional               of his application:
expenditure.      The    applicant     considers    that   the
Commission's action constitutes a breach of contract
                                                                     Ð Breach of the obligation to provide a statement of
entitling it to damages.
                                                                         reasons, as regards, in particular, the reasons for
                                                                         which a more severe penalty was imposed, as well as
(1) OJ L 204, 25.7.1987, p. 1.                                           the failure to mention any possible mitigating factors.
                                                                     Ð Manifest error of assessment giving rise to a breach
                                                                         of the principles of proportionality and non-
                                                                         discrimination.
Action brought on 18 December 1998 by Yannis Tzikis                  Ð Breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare and
   against the Commission of the European Communities                    interests of officials.
                       (Case T-203/98)
                                                                     Ð Infringement of procedural requirements and of the
                        (1999/C 71/56)
                                                                         rights of the defence, inasmuch as the appointing
                                                                         authority did not even carry out an investigation or
                                                                         make any detailed and impartial inquiries.
                (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 18 December
1998 by Yannis Tzikis, residing at Boortmeerbeek                     Action brought on 21 December 1998 by Clauni S.A. and
(Belgium), represented by Georges Vandersanden and                   Others against the Commission of the European
Laure Levi, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service                                   Communities
in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL,
                                                                                (Case T-205/98)
30 Rue de Cessange.
                                                                                (1999/C 71/57)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Ð annul the decision taken by the appointing authority               An action against the Commission of the European
    on 27 October 1998, by which it removed the                      Communities was brought before the Court of First
    applicant from his post with effect from 1 November              Instance of the European Communities on 21 December
    1998;                                                            1998 by Clauni S.A., Jean Marie BissieÁres, Loma S.A. and
                                                                     AndreÂ Lompech, respectively domiciled at Le Passage, La
                                                                     Croix Blanche and Penne d'Agenais (France), represented
Ð order the Commission to pay damages by way of                      by Daniel VeyssieÁre, of the Bar of Villeneuve sur Lot
    compensation for the loss suffered by him as a result            (France), with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
    of the illegality of the decision of the appointing              Chambers of Aloïse May, 31 Grand-Rue.
    authority of 27 October 1998, those damages being
    provisionally quantified in the sum of 1 euro;
                                                                     The applicants claim that the Court should:
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.                             Ð allow the applicants' claim to be entitled to a rebate.


title: Case C-1/15: Order of the President of the Court of 22 September 2016 — European Commission v Republic of Austria, supported by: Federal Republic of Germany, Czech Republic

text:
               5.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 454/20

      Order of the President of the Court of 22 September 2016 — European Commission v Republic of Austria, supported by: Federal Republic of Germany, Czech Republic
      (Case C-1/15) (1)

      (2016/C 454/35)
      Language of the case: German
      The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 73, 2.3.2015.


title: Judgment of the Court of 23 February 1999 in Case C-42/97: European Parliament v. Council of the European Union (Council Decision 96/664/EC - Promotion of linguistic diversity of the Community in the information society - Legal basis)

text:
10.4.1999             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 100/7
Nordhorn (Germany) for a preliminary in the criminal                 Florence (Italy), for a preliminary ruling in the criminal
proceedings before that court against Arnoldus van der               proceedings pending before that court against Massimo
Laan Ð on the interpretation of Article 30 of the EC                 Romanelli, Paolo Romanelli Ð on the interpretation of
Treaty Ð the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann             Article 3 of the Second Council Directive 89/646/EEC of
(Rapporteur), (President of the Chamber) D. A. O.                    15 December 1989 on the coordination of laws,
Edward and M. Wathelet, Judges, J. Mischo, Advocate-                 regulations and administrative provisions relating to the
General; H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the                taking up and pursuit of the business of credit institutions
Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 February 1999, in               and amending Directive 77/780/EEC (OJ L 386,
which it has ruled:                                                  30.12.1989, p. 1) Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber),
                                                                     composed of: P. J. G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur), President of
                                                                     the Chamber, G. Hirsch, J. L. Murray, H. Ragnemalm and
It is contrary to Article 30 of the EC Treaty for national           R. Schintgen, Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate-General; H.
rules to prohibit, for reasons of consumer protection, the           von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has
marketing of foodstuffs lawfully manufactured and                    given a judgment on 11 February 1999, in which it has
marketed in another Member State, where consumers are                ruled:
protected by means of labelling in accordance with the
provisions of Council Directive 79/112/EEC of
18 December 1978 on the approximation of the laws of                 The term other repayable funds' in Article 3 of the
the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation            Second Council Directive 89/646/EEC of 15 December
and advertising of foodstuffs, in particular those                   1989 on the coordination of laws, regulations and
concerning the description of products and the list of               administrative provisions relating to the taking up and
ingredients.                                                         pursuit of the business of credit institutions and amending
                                                                     Directive 77/780/EEC refers not only to financial
                                                                     instruments which possess the intrinsic characteristic of
It is contrary to Articles 2 and 5(1) of Directive 79/112/           repayability, but also to those which, although not
EEC to use a trade description which does not make it                possessing that characteristic, are the subject of a
possible for purchasers in the State where the product is            contractual agreement to repay the funds paid.
sold to ascertain the true nature of the foodstuff.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 370, 6.12.1997.
Where the quantity of added water represents more than
5 % by weight of the finished product, failure to include
water' in the list of ingredients constitutes infringement of
Article 3(1), read in conjunction with Article 6(5)(a), of
Directive 79/112/EEC.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(1) OJ C 7, 10.1.1998.
                                                                                of 23 February 1999
                                                                     in Case C-42/97: European Parliament v. Council of the
                                                                                European Union (1)
                                                                     (Council Decision 96/664/EC Ð Promotion of linguistic
                                                                     diversity of the Community in the information society Ð
                                                                                Legal basis)
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (1999/C 100/11)
                        (Sixth Chamber)
                     of 11 February 1999                                            (Language of the case: French)
in Case C-366/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunale Civile e Penale, Florence): criminal
proceedings against Massimo Romanelli and Paolo                        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                          Romanelli (1)                                       published in the European Court Reports)
(Freedom to provide services Ð Credit institutions Ð
                       Repayable funds)                              In Case C-42/97: European Parliament (Agents: Johann
                                                                     Schoo and Norbert Lorenz) v. Council of the European
                        (1999/C 100/10)                              Union (Agents: Bjarne Hoff-Nielsen and FreÂdeÂric Anton)
                                                                     Ð Application for annulment of Council Decision 96/664/
                (Language of the case: Italian)                      EC of 21 November 1996 on the adoption of a
                                                                     multiannual programme to promote linguistic diversity of
                                                                     the Community in the information society (OJ L 306,
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       28.11.1996, p. 40) Ð the Court, composed of: P. J. G.
         published in the European Court Reports)                    Kapteyn, President of the Fourth and Sixth Chambers,
                                                                     actig as President, G. Hirsch and P. Jann (Presidents of
                                                                     Chambers), G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, C.
In Case C-366/97: reference to the Court under Article 177           Gulmann, J. L. Murray, L. Sevón (Rapporteur), M.
of the EC Treaty from the Tribunale Civile e Penale,                 Wathelet, R. Schintgen and K. M. Ioannou, Judges;
 ---pagebreak--- C 100/8               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    10.4.1999
Advocate-General: A. La Pergola, Registrar: H. von                   within the meaning of Article 905(1) of Commission
Holstein, Assistant Registrar, has given a judgment on               Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying
23 February 1999, in which it:                                       down provisions for the implementation of Council
                                                                     Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the
                                                                     Community        Customs      Code       exist,   necessitating
1. Dismisses the application;                                        examination of the file by the Commission, where, having
                                                                     regard to the objective of fairness underlying Article 239
                                                                     of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 factors liable to place
                                                                     the applicant in an exceptional situation as compared with
2. Orders the Parliament to pay the costs.                           other operators engaged in the same business are found to
                                                                     exist and the conditions laid down in Article 900(1)(a) of
                                                                     Regulation No 2454/93, for remission of customs duties in
(1) OJ C 74, 8.3.1997.                                               favour of an applicant, are not fulfilled.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 131, 26.4.1997.
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       (Sixth Chamber)
                     of 25 February 1999                                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
in Case C-86/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                                    (Sixth Chamber)
the Bundesfinanzhof): Reiner Woltmann, trading as
      Trans-Ex-Import' v. Hauptzollamt Potsdam (1)                                      of 25 February 1999
(Theft of goods Ð Customs duties Ð Remission Ð                       in   Case   C-195/97: Commission of the              European
                       Special situation)                                        Communities v. Italian Republic (1)
                       (1999/C 100/12)                               (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations Ð
                                                                             Failure to transpose Directive 91/676/EEC)
                                                                                (1999/C 100/13)
               (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
         published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
In Case C-86/97: reference to the Court under Article 177                     published in the European Court Reports)
of the EC Treaty from the Bundesfinanzhof, Germany, for
a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before
that court between Reiner Woltmann, trading as Trans-
Ex-Import', and Hauptzollamt Potsdam Ð on the                        In Case C-195/97: Commission of the European
interpretation of Article 905(1) of Commission Regulation            Communities (Agent: Paolo Stancanelli) v. Italian Republic
(EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions               (Agent: Professor Umberto Leanza, assisted by Pier
for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC)                   Giorgio Ferri) Ð application for a declaration that, by
No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code                   failing to adopt and communicate within the prescribed
(OJ L 253, 11.10.1993, p. 1) Ð the Court (Sixth                      period the provisions necessary to transpose into domestic
Chamber), composed of: G. Hirsch, President of the                   law Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991
Second Chamber, acting as President of the Sixth                     concerning the protection of waters against pollution
Chamber, G. F. Mancini, J. L. Murray (Rapporteur), H.                caused by nitrates from agricultural sources (OJ L 375,
Ragnemalm and R. Schintgen, Judges; G. Cosmas,                       31.12.1991, p. 1), and in particular by failing to comply
Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a                   with the obligation laid down in Article 3(2) of the
judgment on 25 February 1999, in which it has ruled:                 Directive, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
                                                                     obligations under Community law Ð the Court (Sixth
                                                                     Chamber), composed of: P. J. G. Kapteyn, President of the
                                                                     Chamber, G. F. Mancini, J. L. Murray (Rapporteur), H.
Factors which might constitute a special situation resulting         Ragnemalm and K. M. Ioannou, Judges; P. LeÂger,
from circumstances in which no deception or obvious                  Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
negligence may be attributed to the person concerned,                judgment on 25 February 1999, in which it:


title: Case T-550/14: Judgment of the General Court of 17 September 2015 — Volkswagen v OHIM (COMPETITION) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community word mark COMPETITION — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               3.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 363/38

         Judgment of the General Court of 17 September 2015 — Volkswagen v OHIM (COMPETITION)
   (Case T-550/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark COMPETITION - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 363/47)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Volkswagen AG (Wolfsburg, Germany) (represented by: U. Sander, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 May 2014 (Case R 2082/2013-1) concerning an application for registration of the word sign COMPETITION as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Volkswagen AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 329, 22.9.2014.


title: Case C-42/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Ålands Förvaltningsdomstol by judgment of that Court of 5 February 2002 in the proceedings, brought by Diana Elisabeth Lindman

text:
4.5.2002                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 109/27
account of the substitutive nature of certain food and drink               Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landgericht
products (such as, in particular, breakfast cereals enriched with          Stuttgart by order of that Court of 8 February 2002 in the
vitamin D).                                                                case of Landesbausparkasse Baden-Württemberg against
                                                                                Elisabeth Huttenlocher
                                                                                (Case C-43/02)
(1) Council Directive 89/398 on the approximation of the laws of
    the Member States relating to foodstuffs intended for particular
    nutritional uses (OJ 1989 L 186, p. 27, as amended).                                           (2002/C 109/45)
(2) Council Directive 89/107/EEC on the approximation of the laws
    of the Member States concerning food additives authorised for
    use in foodstuffs intended for human consumption (OJ 1989
    L 40, p. 27, as amended).                                              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                           European Communities by order of the Landgericht Stuttgart
                                                                           (Regional Court, Stuttgart) of 11 February 2002, received at
                                                                           the Court Registry on 15 February 2002, for a preliminary
                                                                           ruling in the case of Landesbausparkasse Baden-Württemberg
                                                                           against Elisabeth Huttenlocher on the following question:
                                                                           Is the second part of Article 2 of Directive 85/577/EEC(1) to
                                                                           be interpreted as meaning that a close dependant (in this case
                                                                           an unmarried partner) is also acting ‘in the name or on behalf
                                                                           of a trader’ where that person as a consumer takes out a loan
                                                                           with a trader, the trader makes the loan subject to a security
                                                                           (assumption of joint liability), makes the requisite form
                                                                           available to that person and the borrower presents the form
                                                                           for signature to his close dependant in the residence which
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Ålands För-                      they share?
valtningsdomstol by judgment of that Court of 5 February
2002 in the proceedings, brought by Diana Elisabeth
                              Lindman                                      (1) OJ L 372 of 31.12.1985, p. 31.
                           (Case C-42/02)
                                                                           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Vantaan Kärä-
                          (2002/C 109/44)                                  jäoikeus by order of that Court of 1 February 2002 in the
                                                                             case of Fixtures Marketing Ltd against Oy Veikkaus Ab
                                                                                (Case C-46/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 109/46)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Ålands För-
valtningsdomstol (Administrative Court, Åland, Finland) of
5 February 2002, received at the Court Registry on 15 February             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
2002, for a preliminary ruling in the proceeding, brought by               European Communities by order of the Vantaan Käräjäoikeus
Diana Elisabeth Lindman on the following question:                         (District Court, Vantaa) of 1 February 2002, received at the
                                                                           Court Registry on 18 February 2002, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                           in the case of Fixtures Marketing Ltd against Oy Veikkaus Ab
Does Article 49 of the Treaty establishing the European                    on the following questions:
Communities preclude a Member State from applying rules
under which lottery winnings from lotteries held in other                  1)    May the requirement in Article 7(1) of the directive (1) for
Member States are included in the taxable income of the                          a link between the investment and the making of the
winner on assessment to income tax, whereas lottery winnings                     database be interpreted in the sense that the ‘obtaining’
from lotteries held in the Member State in question are exempt                   referred to in Article 7(1) and the investment directed at
from tax.                                                                        it refers, in the present case, to investment which is
                                                                                directed at the determination of the dates of the matches
                                                                                and the match pairings themselves and, when the criteria
                                                                                for granting protection are appraised, does the drawing
                                                                                up of the fixture list include investment which is not
                                                                                relevant?