title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, by order of that court of 16 November 1995, in the case of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise against T. P. Madgett and R. M. Baldwin trading as The Howden Court Hotel (Case C-308/96)

text:
No C 336/20           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     9 . 11 . 96
    and Chemnitz, in the form of investment subsidies                 de Versailles ( Versailles Court of Appeal ) of 8 September
    amounting to DM 90,7 million, the Federal Republic of             1995 , which was received at the Court Registry on
    Germany has infringed the decision of the Commission              23 September 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
    of 26 June 1996 on the grant of aid by Germany to the             Javico International and Jafico AG v. Yves Saint Laurent
    Volkswagen group for works in Mosel and Chemnitz                  Parfums on the following questions :
    and the third sentence of Article 93 ( 3 ) of the EC
    Treaty,                                                           1 . Where an undertaking ( the supplier ) situated in a
                                                                           Member State of the European Union by contract
— order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the                         entrusts another undertaking ( the distributor ) situated
    costs .                                                                in another Member State with the distribution of its
                                                                           products in a territory outside the Union, must
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                        Article 85 ( 1 ) of the Treaty establishing the European
                                                                           Community be interpreted as prohibiting provisions in
Infringement of Community law, in particular the third                     that contract which preclude the distributor from
sentence of Article 93 ( 3 ) of the EC Treaty: the legality of the         effecting any sales in a territory other than the
decision of the Commission is a matter to be determined by                 contractual territory, and hence any sale in the Union,
the Court of First Instance, in which the Free State of Saxony             either by direct marketing or by redirection from the
has in the meantime lodged an application for a declaration                contractual territory ?
of nullity pursuant to Article 173 of the EC Treaty ( Case
T-126/96 ). Until such time as a final judgment has been              2 . In the event that the said Article 85 ( 1 ) prohibits such
delivered in that action, Germany and, consequently, the                   contractual provisions, must it be interpreted as not
Free State of Saxony are obliged to comply fully with the                  being applicable where the supplier otherwise
decision of the Commission .
                                                                           distributed his products on the territory of the Union by
                                                                           means of a selective distribution network which has
                                                                           been the subject of an exemption decision under
                                                                           Article 85 ( 3 )?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
Amministrativo Regionale della Liguria in the case Fiera
SpA against Unità Sanitaria Locale No 3 ( Genoa ) and
                    Impresa Romagnoli SpA
                        ( Case C-304/96 )                             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
                          ( 96/C 336/37 )                             Justice, Queen's Bench Division, by order of that court of
                                                                      16 November 1995 , in the case of the Commissioners of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                Customs and Excise against T. P. Madgett and R. M.
European Communities by an order of the Tribunale                             Baldwin trading as The Howden Court Hotel
Amministrativo Regionale della Liguria ( Regional                                              ( Case C-308/96 )
Administrative Court of Liguria ), First Civil Chamber, of                                       ( 96/C 336/39 )
4 July 1 996 , received at the Court Registry on 1 9 September
1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Hera SpA
against Unita Sanitaria Locale No 3 ( Genoa ) and Impresa             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Romagnoli SpA, on the question :                                      European Communities by an order of the High Court of
                                                                      Justice, Queen's Bench Division, of 16 November 1995 ,
whether or not the Community rules allow — and if so in               which was received at the Court Registry on 23 September
what cases — a Member State to make temporary                          1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of the
exceptions regarding the entry into force of directives where         Commissioners of Customs and Excise against T. P.
the latter prescribe an appropriate time-limit.                       Madgett and R. M. Baldwin trading as The Howden Court
                                                                      Hotel , on the following questions:
                                                                       1 . What are the criteria for determining whether the
                                                                           operations of a taxable person are the operations of a
                                                                           'travel agent' or 'tour operator' to which the provisions
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'Appel de                of Article 26 of Council Directive 77/388/EEC ( ! ) of
Versailles by judgment of that court of 8 September 1995 in                 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the
the case of Javico International and Javico AG v. Yves Saint               Member States relating to turnover tax ( the sixth
                        Laurent Parfums                                     Directive on value added tax ) apply ? In particular, do
                        ( Case C-306/96 )                                  the said provisions apply to the operations of a person
                                                                           who, though not a 'travel agent' or 'tour operator' in the
                           ( 96/C 336/38 )                                  ordinary English meanings of those expressions ,
                                                                            provides for the benefit of travellers services of a kind
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      commonly provided by travel agents or tour
European Communities by a judgment of the Cour d'Appel                      operators ?
 ---pagebreak--- 9. 11 . 96            I EN I               Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 336/21
2 . Having regard to the answer to the first question, do the         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht
     said provisions apply to operations of the kind at issue in      Hamburg by order of that court of 12 August 1996
     the present case, where the owners of a hotel in the south       in the case of Lopex Export GmbH v. Hauptzollamt
     of England, as part of their business as hoteliers, offers                                Hamburg-Jonas
     to customers at a single inclusive charge a week's stay at                               ( Case C-3 15/96 )
     the hotel , transport by coach between the hotel and
                                                                                ( 96/C 336/41 )
     points in the north of England, and a local sight-seeing
     trip by coach during their stay at the hotel ( the transport
     elements being bought in by the owners of the hotel from         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     a coach hire company )?                                          European Communities by an order of the Joint Senate of
                                                                      the Finanzgericht Hamburg ( Hamburg Finance Court) for
                                                                      the     Lander of Hamburg, Niedersachsen and
(>) OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p . 1 .                              Schleswig-Holstein, Fourth Senate, of 12 August 1996 ,
                                                                      which was received at the Court Registry on 26 September
                                                                       1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Lopex Export
                                                                      GmbH v. Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas on the following
                                                                      questions :
                                                                      1 . Is the first indent of the first paragraph of Article 13 of
                                                                          Regulation ( EEC ) No 171 5/90 ( 1 ) in so far as it
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura                         prescribes that binding tariff information ceases to be
Circondariale di Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli, by                   valid immediately as a result of the adoption of a
order of that court of 9 September 1996 in the case of                    regulation amending the customs nomenclature, with
Daniele Annibaldi against 1 . Municipality of Guidonia and                no transitional period, compatible with Community law
             2 . the President of the Lazio Region                        from the points of view of protection of legitimate
                                                                          expectations and legal certainty ?
                         ( Case C-309/96 )
                           ( 96/C 336/40 )                            2 . If not, what are the consequences in particular in a case
                                                                          where binding tariff information, differing from the
                                                                          amended nomenclature, has been issued and/or there is
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    an export licence with an advance fixing certificate
European Communities by order of the Pretura                              which is still valid for a further six months ?
Circondariale di Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome
District Magistrates ' Court, Tivoli Division ), of 9 September           Is a decision on the limited continuing validity of
1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on                        binding tariff information to be measured against the
23 September 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of               general conditions which have been developed on
Daniele Annibaldi against 1 . Municipality of Guidonia and                protection of legitimate expectations, and in particular
2 . the President of the Lazio Region on the following                    does it presuppose an expectation of the exporter to that
questions:                                                                effect which deserves protection as against the
                                                                          Community interest ? Does that also apply with respect
1 . Is a national law which requires undertakings                         to the third indent of Article 14 ( 4 ) of Regulation ( EEC )
     incorporated within a nature and archaeological park to              No 1715/90, under which the advance fixing certificate
     refrain from any activity whatsoever in the area                     must have been 'issued on the basis of the said binding
     concerned     —     which    amounts   to   a    substantial         tariff information '
     expropriation of the undertakings incorporated within
     the park itself without any provision being made for             (M OJ No L 160 , 26 . 6 . 1990, p . 1 .
     payment of compensation to the individuals whose
     property is expropriated — in breach of the
     fundamental right to property, to carry on business and
     to equal treatment by the national authorities ?
2 . Irrespective of the answer which the Court of Justice
     may consider appropriate in response to the first                Action brought on 26 September 1996 by the Commis
     question, are the measures provided for by Article 7 of          sion of the European Communities against the Italian
     the regional law in question ( equivalent, for the                                             Republic
     purposes of proceedings under Community law, to any                                     ( Case C-3 16/96 )
     other national legislation ) in breach of the principle of                                 ( 96/C 336/42 )
     equal treatment and the related prohibition of
     discrimination laid down in the second subparagraph of
     Article 40 ( 3 ) of the Treaty of Rome ?                                         (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                      An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
                                                                      the Court of Justice of the European Communities on


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 10 September 1996 in Case C-61/94: Commission of the European Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - International Dairy Arrangement)

text:
23 . 11 . 96           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 354/ 1
                                                                   I
                                                            (Information)
                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                         COURT OF JUSTICE
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                   owners or lessees is to be included in the denominator of the
                         ( Fifth Chamber )                            fraction used to calculate the deductible proportion.
                         of 11 July 1996
                                                                      (') OJ No C 380 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .
in Case C-306/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Cour Administrative d'Appel de Lyon ); Régie
Dauphinoise — Cabinet A. Forest Sari v. Ministre du
                              Budget (')
( Value added tax — Interpretation of Article 19 (2) of the
sixth Directive 77/388/EEC — Deduction of input tax —
Incidental financial transactions — Calculation of the
                     deductible proportion)                                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           ( 96/C 354/01 )                                                  of 10 September 1996
                                                                      in     Case   C-61/94 : Commission of the               European
                                                                             Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany ( ] )
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                      (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                                                                                International Dairy Arrangement)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                                      ( 96/C 354/02 )
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
In Case C-306/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty from the Cour Administrative d'Appel de
Lyon Administrative Court of Appeal, Lyon ( France ) for a             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                       published in the European Court Reports)
court between Regie Dauphinoise — Cabinet A. Forest Sari
and Ministre du Budget — on the interpretation of
Article 19 ( 2 ) of the sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of         In Case C-61 /94 : Commission of the European
 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the                  Communities ( Agent: Jorn Sack ) v. Federal Republic of
 Member States relating to turnover taxes — common                    Germany ( Agent: Bernd Kloke ) — application for a
 system of value added tax; uniform basis of assessment ( OJ          declaration that the Federal Republic of Germany has failed
 No L 145 , 1977, p. 1 ) — the Court ( Fifth Chamber ),               to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty by authorizing
 composed of: D. A. O. Edward, President of the Chamber,              the importation under inward processing relief
J. P. Puissochet, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida ( Rapporteur ), C.        arrangements of dairy products whose customs value was
 Gulmann and M. Wathelet, Judges; C. O. Lenz,                          lower than the minimum prices set under the International
 Advocate-General ; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the                 Dairy Arrangement, approved on behalf of the Community
 Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 July 1996 , the                 by Council Decision 80/271 /EEC of 10 December 1979
 operative part of which is as follows :                               concerning the conclusion of the Multilateral Agreements
                                                                       resulting from the 1973 to 1979 trade negotiations ( OJ No
                                                                       L 71 , 1980, p. 1 ), and by thus failing to have regard to 1 . the
 Article 19 (2) of the sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of           duty of cooperation laid down in Article 6 ( 1 ) ( a ) of Annex I
 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the                   and in Article 6 ( a ) of Annexes II and III to the Arrangement,
 Member States relating to turnover taxes — common system              2 . the obligation under Article 3 ( 1 ) of each of those
 of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, must be              Annexes and 3 . the economic conditions for the granting of
 interpreted as meaning that the interest realized by a                authorizations for inward processing relief, laid down by
 company managing immovable property on treasury                       Articles 5 to 8 of Council Regulation (EEC ) No 1999/85 on
 placements made for its own account of funds paid by the              inward processing relief arrangements ( OJ No L 188 , 1985,
 ---pagebreak--- No C 354/2            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                         23 . 11 . 96
p. 1 ) — the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias ,          United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under
President, D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet ( Rapporteur )         Article 2 ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) and Article 3 ( 2 ) of that Directive — the
and G. Hirsch, Presidents of Chambers , G. F. Mancini , J. C.        Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President,
Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann and                C. N. Kakouris, D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet and G.
J. L. Murray, Judges; G. Tesauro, Advocate-General ; D.              Hirsch ( Presidents of Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, J. C.
Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the                   Moitinho de Almeida , P. J. G. Kapteyn ( Rapporteur ), C.
Registrar, gave a judgment on 10 September 1 996 , in which          Gulmann , J. L. Murray, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm and L.
it :                                                                 Sevón, Judges ; C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General ; D.
                                                                     Louterman-Hubeau , Principal Administrator, for the
1 . declares that, by authorizing the importation under              Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 September 1996 , in
                                                                     which it :
     inward processing reliefarrangements of dairy products
     whose customs value was lower than the minimum
     prices set under the International Dairy Arrangement,           1 . declares that, by adopting, with respect to satellite
     approved on behalf of the Community by Council                       broadcasts, the criteria set forth in section 43 of the
     Decision 80/271 /EEC of 10 December 1 979 concerning                 Broadcasting Act 1990 for the purpose of determining
     the conclusion of the Multilateral Agreements resulting              which satellite broadcasters fall under the jurisdiction of
     from the 1973 to 1979 trade negotiations, the Federal                the United Kingdom and, in the context of that
     Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations             jurisdiction, by applying different regimes to domestic
     under Article 6 (1 ) (a) of Annex I and Article 6 (a) of             satellite services and non-domestic satellite services, and
     Annexes II and III to that Arrangement, and under                    by exercising control over broadcasts which are
     Council Regulation (EEC) No 1999/85 of 16 July 1985                  transmitted by broadcasters falling under the
     on inward processing relief arrangements;                            jurisdiction of other Member States when those
                                                                          broadcasts are transmitted by a non-domestic satellite
2 . dismisses the remainder of the application;                           service or conveyed to the public as a licensable
                                                                          programme service, the United Kingdom has failed to
                                                                          fulfil its obligations under Article 2 (1 ) and (2) and
3 . orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the                     Article 3 (2) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC of
     costs .
                                                                          3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain
                                                                          provisions laid down by law, regulation or
(') OJ No C 90 , 26 . 3 . 1994 .                                          administrative action in Member States concerning the
                                                                          pursuit of television broadcasting activities;
                                                                     2 . orders the United Kingdom to pay the costs;
                                                                     3 . orders the French Republic to pay its own costs .
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                     of 10 September 1996                            (') OJ No C 275 , 1.10 . 1994 .
in Case C-222/94: Commission of the European
Communities , supported by French Republic, v. United
     Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ( ! )
 (Failure to fulfil obligations — Directive 89/552/EEC —
 Telecommunications — Television broadcasting —
                Jurisdiction over broadcasters)                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          ( 96/C 354/03 )                                                   of 10 September 1996
                                                                         in Case C-277/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling
                (Language of the case: English)                      from the Arrondissementsrechtbank, Amsterdam ): Z.
                                                                     Taflan-Met, S. Altun-Baser and E. Andal-Bugdayci v.
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be        Bestuur van de Sociale Verzekeringsbank, and O. Akol v.
         published in the European Court Reports)                       Bestuur van de Nieuwe Algemene Bedrijfsvereniging (')
                                                                     (EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Decision of the
In Case C-222/94 : Commission of the European                        Association Council — Social Security — Entry into force —
 Communities ( Agents : Christopher Docksey and Berend Jan                                        Direct effect)
Drijber ), supported by the French Republic ( Agents : Edwige                                    ( 96/C 354/04 )
 Belliard and Jean-Louis Falconi ), against the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ( Agent:                                 (Language of the case: Dutch)
John E. Collins, assisted by Stephen Richards and Rhodri
Thompson ) — application for a declaration that, by failing
 to implement correctly Council Directive 89/552/EEC of              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions                      published in the European Court Reports)
 laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in
 Member States concerning the pursuit of television                  In Case C-277/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
 broadcasting activities ( OJ No L 298 , 1989 , p. 23 ), the         of the EC Treaty by the Arrondissementsrechtbank [District


title: Case T-66/03: Action brought on 26 February 2003 by Koffiebranderĳ en Theehandel "Drie Mollen sinds 1818" B.V. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
24.5.2003             EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 124/23
effect. Moreover, the right to due process of law is infringed            European Communities on 26 February 2003 by Koffiebrand-
by the case-handler’s inadequate knowledge of languages or                erij en Theehandel ‘Drie Mollen sinds 1818’ B.V., ’s-Hertogen-
the premature change of case-handler.                                     bosch, the Netherlands, represented by Mr P. Steinhauser,
                                                                          Lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg. Manuel
                                                                          Nabeiro Silveria, Lda. was also a party to the proceedings
The applicant also submits that it is not guilty of any                   before the Board of Appeal.
infringement of Article 81(1) EC. It complains that the
Commission based its decision on an incoherent presentation
of the events. In the alternative, it submits that in any event it
cannot be charged with participation in a single infringement             The applicant claims that the Court should:
over a lengthy period. This leads to a reduction in gravity and
to the limitation of actions in respect of individual acts that
took place more than five years before the beginning of                   —     annul the decision of 17 December 2002 of the Second
proceedings.                                                                    Board of Appeal in case R 270/2001-2
                                                                          —     order the office to bear only its own costs.
Moreover, the applicant submits that the decision infringes
Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17/62 with regard to the upper
limit of the fine. The applicant is not the ultimate parent
company of ‘Unternehmensgruppe Knauf’ and it cannot be
held liable for the conduct of other companies, because the
Knauf undertaking is not connected via a single legal person              Pleas in law and main arguments
as ultimate parent company of the group. The applicant also
complains that the Commission failed to carry out the
necessary investigations in that respect.                                 Applicant for the Com-         Manuel Nabeiro Silveria, Lda.
                                                                          munity trade mark:
Furthermore, the applicant complains that the Commission
infringed Article 253 EC and Article 15(2) of Regulation                  Community trade mark           Figurative mark ‘GALAXIA’, for
No 17/62 as a result of the assessment of the fine, which                 sought:                        ‘coffee’ in class 30 (registration n
exceeded the limits of its discretion. Moreover, the Commission                                          812073)
infringed the principle of equal treatment, because it did not
reduce the applicant’s fine even though the applicant had
                                                                          Proprietor of mark or          KOFFIEBRANDERIJ EN THEE-
cooperated with the Commission to the same extent as BPB
                                                                          sign cited in the oppo-        HANDEL ‘DRIE MOLLEN SINDS
plc., whose fine was reduced by 30 %.
                                                                          sition proceedings:            1818’
Finally, the applicant complains of the excessive length of the           Mark or sign cited in          National marks ‘GALA’ for certain
procedure and claims that it is an infringement of Article 6(1)           opposition:                    goods in class 30
of the European Convention for the Protection of Human
Rights.
                                                                          Decision of the Oppo-          Opposition rejected.
                                                                          sition Division:
                                                                          Decision of the Board of       Opponent’s appeal dismissed.
                                                                          Appeal:
Action brought on 26 February 2003 by Koffiebranderij                     Pleas in law:                  —     misapplication of Article 42
en Theehandel ‘Drie Mollen sinds 1818’ B.V. against the                                                        paragraph 1 and Article 8
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade                                                         paragraph 1 b) of Regu-
                 Marks and Designs) (OHIM)                                                                     lation 40/94 (1). The appli-
                                                                                cant challenges the Board of
                                                                                Appeal’s conclusion that
                         (Case T-66/03)                                                                        there is no likelihood of con-
                                                                                fusion between the two
                                                                                marks.
                        (2003/C 124/41)
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                          (1 ) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
                                                                               Community trade mark (OJ 11, p. 1).
An action against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the


title: Case C-562/13: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Centre public d’action sociale d’Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve v Moussa Abdida (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Articles 19(2) and 47 — Directive 2004/83/EC — Minimum standards for determining who qualifies for refugee status or subsidiary protection status — Person eligible for subsidiary protection — Article 15(b) — Torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment of an applicant in the country of origin — Article 3 — More favourable standards — Applicant suffering from a serious illness — No appropriate treatment available in the country of origin — Directive 2008/115/EC — Return of illegally staying third-country nationals — Article 13 — Judicial remedy with suspensive effect — Article 14 — Safeguards pending return — Basic needs)

text:
               23.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/13

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Centre public d’action sociale d’Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve v Moussa Abdida
   (Case C-562/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Articles 19(2) and 47 - Directive 2004/83/EC - Minimum standards for determining who qualifies for refugee status or subsidiary protection status - Person eligible for subsidiary protection - Article 15(b) - Torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment of an applicant in the country of origin - Article 3 - More favourable standards - Applicant suffering from a serious illness - No appropriate treatment available in the country of origin - Directive 2008/115/EC - Return of illegally staying third-country nationals - Article 13 - Judicial remedy with suspensive effect - Article 14 - Safeguards pending return - Basic needs))
   (2015/C 065/18)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour du travail de Bruxelles

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Centre public d’action sociale d’Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve

      Defendant: Moussa Abdida

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 5 and 13 of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals, taken in conjunction with Articles 19(2) and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 14(1)(b) of that directive, are to be interpreted as precluding national legislation which:

               —

               does not endow with suspensive effect an appeal against a decision ordering a third country national suffering from a serious illness to leave the territory of a Member State, where the enforcement of that decision may expose that third country national to a serious risk of grave and irreversible deterioration in his state of health, and

               —

               does not make provision, in so far as possible, for the basic needs of such a third country national to be met, in order to ensure that emergency health care and essential treatment of illness are in fact made available during the period in which that Member State is required to postpone removal of the third country national following the lodging of the appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 9, 11.1.2014.


title: Case C-218/05: Order of the President of the Court of  15 February 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

text:
               1.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 154/14

         Order of the President of the Court of 15 February 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-218/05) (1)

   (2006/C 154/35)

      Language of the case: Italian

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

      (1)  OJ C 182, 23.07.2005.


title: Case F-133/06: Action brought on 11 July 2007 — Marcuccio v Commission

text:
               22.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/18

         Action brought on 11 July 2007 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case F-133/06)
   (2007/C 223/32)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that there is no legal basis for or, in the alternative, annul the decision rejecting the applicant's application of 31 August 2005 to the Appointing Authority for the restoration to him of the property which was formerly situated at the accommodation provided to him by his employer in Angola and which was wrongfully seized by the Commission;

               —

               declare that there is no legal basis for or, in the alternative, annul in so far as is necessary the decision of the Appointing Authority of 20 July 2006 rejecting the applicant's complaint against the contested decision;

               —

               order the defendant to restore the applicant's property to him;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 1 000 000, or such other sum as the Tribunal may consider just and equitable, by way of compensation for the damage to the applicant deriving from the contested decision from the date of the request of 31 August 2005 or, in the alternative, from the date of the contested decision to the present date;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the applicant, in respect of each day from the present date until the date on which each decision granting fully and unconditionally the request of 31 August 2005 is implemented by the defendant, the sum of EUR 300 or such other sum as the Tribunal may consider just and equitable, to be paid on the first day of each month in respect of rights accrued during the previous month, by way of compensation for the damage deriving from the contested decision and arising in the abovementioned period;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of his arguments, the applicant relies on the following three pleas in law:

               (1)

               absolute failure to state reasons, also on the basis that the reasons put forward by the defendant are illogical, inconsistent, confusing and in the nature of a pretext;

               (2)

               serious and manifest infringement of the law;

               (3)

               breach of the obligation to have due regard to the welfare of officials and of the principle of sound administration.


title: Case T-579/13 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 18 December 2013 — Istituto Di Vigilanza Dell’Urbe SpA v European Commission (Interim measures — Public services contracts — Tendering procedure — Provision of security guard and reception services at the ‘European Union Houses’ in Rome and Milan — Award of the contract to another tenderer — Application for suspension of operation — Disregard of the formal requirements — Inadmissibility)

text:
               8.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 39/21

         Order of the President of the General Court of 18 December 2013 — Istituto Di Vigilanza Dell’Urbe SpA v European Commission
   (Case T-579/13 R)
   (Interim measures - Public services contracts - Tendering procedure - Provision of security guard and reception services at the ‘European Union Houses’ in Rome and Milan - Award of the contract to another tenderer - Application for suspension of operation - Disregard of the formal requirements - Inadmissibility)
   2014/C 39/35
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Istituto Di Vigilanza Dell’Urbe SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: D. Dodaro and S. Cianciullo, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Moro and L. Cappelletti, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application seeking the suspension of the operation of the award decision, adopted on 27 August 2013 by the Commission, relating to a public service contract concerning security guard and reception services at the ‘European Union Houses’ in Rome and Milan (Italy).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed

               2.

               The costs are reserved


title: Case F-74/08: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 21 October 2009 — Ramaekers-Jørgensen v Commission (Officials — Community tax — Calculation — Combining the amount of personal remuneration and the survivor’s pension — Rules for collecting the tax — Date of levy)

text:
               5.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/36

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 21 October 2009 — Ramaekers-Jørgensen v Commission
   (Case F-74/08) (1)

   (Officials - Community tax - Calculation - Combining the amount of personal remuneration and the survivor’s pension - Rules for collecting the tax - Date of levy)
   2009/C 297/55
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Dominique Ramaekers-Jørgensen (Genval, Belgium) (represented by: L. Vogel, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and D. Martin, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by K. Zieleśkiewicz and M. Bauer, Agents)

      Re:

   First, annulment of the decision of the appointing authority to calculate the applicant’s Community tax by combining the amount of personal remuneration and the survivor’s pension, and of the decision rejecting the application for the Community tax on her survivor’s pension not to be deducted in advance, prior to the payment thereof, from her remuneration. Second, a finding that Articles 3 and 4 of Regulation No 260/68, are unlawful.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Ms Ramaekers-Jørgensen to bear her own costs and to pay the cost of the Commission of the European Communities;

               3.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 272, 25.10.2008, p. 52.


title: Case C-252/09: Action brought on 7 July 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

text:
               29.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/28

         Action brought on 7 July 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-252/09)
   2009/C 205/49
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Zavvos and G. Braga da Cruz, Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2007/16/EC (1) of 19 March 2007 implementing Council Directive 85/611/EEC on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS) as regards the clarification of certain definitions, or in any event by failing to communicate those measures to the Commission, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 2007/16/EC;

               —

               Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period prescribed for transposing the directive expired on 23 March 2008.

      (1)  OJ 2007 L 79, p. 11.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 17 December 1998 in Case C-2/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova): Società Italiana Petroli SpA (IP) v. Borsana Srl (Social policy - Protection of safety and health of workers - Use of work equipment - Risks related to exposure to carcinogens - Directives 89/655/EEC and 90/394/EEC)

text:
20.2.1999            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 48/5
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       of the assessment of risks is not contrary to that
                    of 17 December 1998                                   directive where it constitutes a more stringent measure
                                                                          for the protection of working conditions authorised by
in Case C-2/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                   Article 118(a)(3) of the EC Treaty and Directive
the Tribunale di Genova): SocietaÁ Italiana Petroli SpA (IP)              90/394/EEC.
                       v. Borsana Srl (1)
(Social policy Ð Protection of safety and health of                  2. Article 4 of Council Directive 89/655/EEC of
workers Ð Use of work equipment Ð Risks related to                        30 November 1989 concerning the minimum safety
exposure to carcinogens Ð Directives 89/655/EEC and                       and health requirements for the use of work
                         90/394/EEC)                                      equipment by workers at work (Second individual
                        (1999/C 48/09)                                    Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of
                                                                          Directive 89/391/EEC) does not preclude a Member
                                                                          State from setting a time-limit for adapting existing
               (Language of the case: Italian)                            working equipment that expires before 31 December
                                                                          1996, provided that the time-limit is not so short that
                                                                          it does not enable employers to effect such adaptation
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be             or entail a cost that is clearly excessive as compared
         published in the European Court Reports)                         with what they would have had to meet if the
                                                                          time-limit had been longer.
In Case C-2/97: reference to the Court under Article 177             (1) OJ C 94, 22.3.1997.
of the EC Treaty from the Tribunale di Genova for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between SocietaÁ Italiana Petroli SpA (IP) and
Borsana Srl Ð on the interpretation of Article 4 of
Council Directive 89/655/EEC of 30 November 1989
concerning the minimum safety and health requirements
for the use of work equipment by workers at work                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Second individual Directive within the meaning of
Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (OJ L 393,                                            (Fifth Chamber)
30.12.1989, p. 13) and Articles 3, 4 and 5 of Council
                                                                                of 17 December 1998
Directive 90/394/EEC of 28 June 1990 on the protection
of workers from the risks related to exposure to                     in Case C-153/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
carcinogens at work (Sixth individual Directive within the           the Tribunal Supremo): Aristóteles Grajera Rodríguez v.
meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (OJ                Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS), and
L 196, 26.7.1990, p. 1) Ð the Court, composed of: G. C.                   Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS) (1)
Rodríguez, President, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J.-P. Puissochet, G.
Hirsch and P. Jann, Presidents of Chambers, G. F.                    (Social security Ð Old-age pensions Ð Calculation of
Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida (Rapporteur), D. A. O.            benefits Ð Heading D, paragraph 4, of Annex VI to
Edward, H. Ragnemalm, R. Schintgen and K. M.                                         Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71)
Ioannou, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate-General; L.                                              (1999/C 48/10)
Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 17 December 1998, in which it has ruled:
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
1. Article 4 of Council Directive 90/394/EEC of 28 June
    1990 on the protection of workers from the risks
    related to exposure to carcinogens at work (Sixth                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
    individual Directive within the meaning of                                 published in the European Court Reports)
    Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) must be
    interpreted to the effect that the employer's obligation
    to reduce or replace a carcinogen is not contingent on           In Case C-153/97: reference to the Court under Article 177
    the outcome of the assessment of risks referred to in            of the EC Treaty from the Tribunal Supremo (Supreme
    Article 3 of that directive.                                     Court) (Spain) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
                                                                     pending before that court between Aristóteles Grajera
                                                                     Rodríguez and Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social
    Article 5 of Directive 90/394/EEC must be interpreted            (INSS), and Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social
    to the effect that the employer's obligation to avoid or         (TGSS) Ð on the validity of heading D, paragraph 4, of
    reduce exposure to a carcinogen is contingent on the             Annex VI to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of
    outcome of the assessment of risks referred to in                14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes
    Article 3 of that directive.                                     to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to
                                                                     members of their families moving within the Community,
                                                                     as amended and updated by Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83
    A national provision which requires the employer to              (OJ L 230, 22.8.1984, p. 6), as adapted by part VIII of
    reduce workers' exposure to a carcinogen irrespective            Annex I to the Act concerning the conditions of accession


title: Case C-308/04 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 June 2006 — SGL Carbon AG v Commission of the European Communities (Appeals — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Graphite electrodes — Article 81(1) EC — Fines — Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Leniency Notice — Principle of non bis in idem )

text:
               2.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/3

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 June 2006 — SGL Carbon AG v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-308/04 P) (1)

   (Appeals - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Graphite electrodes - Article 81(1) EC - Fines - Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Leniency Notice - Principle of non bis in idem)
   (2006/C 212/05)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Appellant: SGL Carbon AG (represented by M. Klusmann and K. Beckmann, lawyers)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities, (represented by A. Bouquet, H. Gading and M. Schneider, Agents), Tokai Carbon Co. Ltd, established in Tokyo (Japan), Nippon Carbon Co. Ltd, established in Tokyo, Showa Denko KK, established in Tokyo, GrafTech International Ltd, formerly UCAR International Inc., established in Wilmington (United States), SEC Corp., established in Amagasaki (Japan), The Carbide/Graphite Group Inc., established in Pittsburgh (United States)
   Re:
   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 29 April 2004 in Joined Cases T-236/01, T-239/01, T-244/01 to T-246/01, T-251/01 and T-252/01 Tokai Carbon and Others as regards Case T-239/01 — Annulment of Commission Decision 2002/271/EC of 18 July 2001 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Case COMP/E-1/36.490 — Graphite electrodes (OJ 2002 L 100, p. 1)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders SGL Carbon AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 262, 23.10.2004.


title: Case C-582/12 P: Appeal brought on 12 December 2012 by El Corte Inglés, S.A. against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 September 2012 in Case T-373/09 El Corte Inglés v OHIM — Pucci International (Emidio Tucci)

text:
               2.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/9

         Appeal brought on 12 December 2012 by El Corte Inglés, S.A. against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 September 2012 in Case T-373/09 El Corte Inglés v OHIM — Pucci International (Emidio Tucci)

   (Case C-582/12 P)
   2013/C 63/16
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: El Corte Inglés, S.A. (represented by: J.L. Rivas Zurdo and E. Seijo Veiguela, abogados)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Emilio Pucci International BV

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2012 in Case T-373/09 inasmuch as it conflicts with the present action

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs of El Corte Inglés, S.A.

               —

               order Emilio Pucci International BV to pay the costs of El Corte Inglés, S.A.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The prospectuses or periodicals or copies of other documents submitted by the opposing party have never been produced in full or in their original form. The result is that the evidence presented by the opposing party could not be taken into account for any specific class. Nonetheless, the General Court, in paragraphs 26 and 27 of its judgment, which focuses on the need to present only original documents, considers that there is no fraud, which is certainly not what had been alleged.
   The documents set out in Annex 2 must be excluded because the dates and the references to publication have clearly been inserted by the opposing party. Given that those issues have not received an adequate response in the judgment, the applicant also considers that the documents contained in the second item of evidence should be declared inadmissible and, consequently, neither use nor reputation of any of the opposing trademarks in class 25 can be deduced from those publications.
   As to the comparison of the goods and services at issue, and all the submissions made up to this point: the opposing party, Emilio Pucci International, B.V. has not proved the use of its earlier Italian trademarks and therefore it is sufficient to carry out a comparison in respect of the application inasmuch as it refers to Classes 18 and 24 of community trademark 203570.
   The opposing party acknowledged that the ‘Emilio Pucci’ trademark fell into disuse after the 70s. Further, it should also be noted that the trademark ‘Emidio Tucci’, which is a renowned trademark in Spain and has clearly proved to be a success in that country, relates to the name and surname of two real persons, Emidio Tucci and Emilio Pucci. These issues are part of the submissions which lie at the heart of the proceedings before the OHIM.
   Evidence of an unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the trademark of the opposing party must show the existence of an intention to trade upon its reputation (see Spa-Finders, paragraph 51 (1)). Nonetheless, the opposing party has not made any submissions in that regard.
   Therefore, when the opposing party alleges real prejudice or an unfair advantage, it must provide evidence thereof, or carry out an assessment of the probabilities and provide evidence which shows that the risk of unfair advantage is not merely hypothetical (paragraph 64 of the judgment), in relation to the type of prejudice allegedly suffered, or to the applicant’s unjust advantage; the mere general allegation of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 40/94 (2) is not sufficient.
   The opposing party, Emilio Pucci International, has not fulfilled its obligation to substantiate those allegations; rather, it simply reasons in general, without detail, about those issues, despite which the General Court, in our respectful opinion, inappropriately, supplements the opposing party’s omission (see paragraph 65 of the judgment) and considers in its judgment that the matter has been proved.
   The consequences for the case come about in paragraphs 66 to 68 of the judgment, which are based on the premise that has previously been shown to be incorrect: if the opposing party, which bears the burden of proof, has not shown the unfair advantage or prejudice to repute, it cannot avoid carrying out the assessment of which goods fall foul of the restrictions set out in Article 8(5) of Regulation No 40/94.

      (1)  Case T-67/04 Spa Monopole v OHIM — Spa-Finders Travel Arrangements (SPA-FINDERS) [2005] ECR II-01825

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 011 p. 1)


title: Case C-524/11: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 September 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Lowlands Design Holding BV v Minister van Financiën (Common Customs Tariff — Combined Nomenclature — Tariff classification — Romper bags for babies and young children — Subheadings 62092000 or 62114290 )

text:
               27.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/12

      Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 September 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Lowlands Design Holding BV v Minister van Financiën
      (Case C-524/11) (1)

      (Common Customs Tariff - Combined Nomenclature - Tariff classification - Romper bags for babies and young children - Subheadings 6209 20 00 or 6211 42 90)
      (2012/C 331/19)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Lowlands Design Holding BV

         Defendant: Minister van Financiën

         Re:

      Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1) and of Commission Regulation (EC) No 651/2007 of 8 June 2007 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (OJ 2007 L 153, p. 3) — Sleeping bags for babies and for children

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Combined Nomenclature forming Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1719/2005 of 27 October 2005, must be interpreted as meaning that romper bags such as those at issue in the main proceedings must be classified under subheading 6209 20 00 as ‘babies’ garments and clothing accessories, of cotton’ if, on account of their size, they are suitable for young children of a body height not exceeding 86 cm. If that is not the case, those products must be classified under subheading 6211 42 90 as ‘other garments, women’s or girls’, of cotton’.

         (1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2011.


title: Case T-293/03: Action brought on 21 August 2003 by Carla Giulietti against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 251/20             EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                        18.10.2003
Pleas in law:                —     Breach of the principles of           —     annul the belated express rejection by the appointing
                                   the        coexistence       of             authority on 11 June 2003 of the applicant's administra-
                                   Community marks and                         tive appeal;
                                   national marks and signs
                                   and of the applicant's rights
                                   of defence.
                             —     In the alternative, infringe-
                                   ment of Article 8(1)(b) of
                                   Regulation (EC) No 40/94.             —     order the Commission to pay all the costs.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         The applicant was a candidate in General Competition COM/
                                                                         A/6/01 to constitute a reserve for the recruitment of adminis-
                                                                         trators in the fields of external relations and management of
Action brought on 21 August 2003 by Carla Giulietti                      aid to non-member countries. The notice of competition con-
    against Commission of the European Communities                       tained the requirement of professional experience at a level
                                                                         commensurate with that of the duties described, for a mini-
                       (Case T-293/03)                                   mum period of three years. However, it was stated that officials
                                                                         and other servants of the European Communities were not
                       (2003/C 251/37)                                   required to have the abovementioned professional experience
                                                                         if they had served in category B for at least three years and had
                  (Language of the case: French)                         successfully completed a university course.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance               Upon submitting her candidature, the applicant submitted as
of the European Communities on 21 August 2003 by Carla                   evidence of her professional experience the fact that she had
                                                                         served for more than three years as President of the
Giulietti, residing in Brussels, represented by P.-P. van
Gehuchten and J. Sambon, lawyers, with an address for service            Management Board of the Foundation ‘Eau pour le Sahel’. By
in Luxembourg.                                                           the contested decision, the Selection Board excluded her on the
                                                                         ground that she did not have the professional experience
                                                                         required.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         In support of her action, the applicant claims that the clause
                                                                         relating to professional experience infringed the principle of
                                                                         equality owing to the fact that such experience is required only
—    annul the decision taken by the Selection Board in com-             for external candidates, while it is not a requirement for can-
     petition COM/A/6/01 to exclude the applicant on the                 didates who are already officials or other servants of the
     ground of lack of professional experience, that decision            European Communities. She also alleges infringement of the
     being contained in the letter from DG ADMIN to the                  principle of legality and a manifest error of assessment in the
     applicant dated 16 October 2002;                                    application by the Selection Board of the clause relating to
                                                                         professional experience.
—    annul the confirmative decision of 21 November 2002;


title: Case C-202/06 P: Appeal brought on  4 May 2006  by Cementbouw Handel & Industrie BV against the judgement of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on  23 February 2006  in Case T-282/02: Cementbouw Handel & Industrie B.V. v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               29.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/17

         Appeal brought on 4 May 2006 by Cementbouw Handel & Industrie BV against the judgement of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 23 February 2006 in Case T-282/02: Cementbouw Handel & Industrie B.V. v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-202/06 P)
   (2006/C 178/27)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Appellant: Cementbouw Handel & Industrie BV (represented by: W. Knibbeler, O. Brouwer and P.J. Kreijger, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgement of the Court of First Instance of 23 February 2006 by which it:

                           a)

                           dismissed the action brought by the Appellant

                           b)

                           ordered the Appellant to pay the costs of the proceedings

               —

               if considered appropriate, refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for judgment;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs, including the costs incurred by eventual intervening parties.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The appellant maintains that the Court of First Instance in its judgement of 23 February 2006:

               a.

               misinterpreted and misapplied Articles 1, 2 and 3(1) of the Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the control of concentrations between undertakings, as amended by Regulation (EC) No. 1310/97 (the Merger Regulation) (1) and:

               b.

               violated the principle of proportionality and misinterpreted and misapplied Article 8(2) of the Merger Regulation;

         which led it wrongly to dismiss the Appellant's application and to uphold the decision of the Commission in so far as it rejected the first set of commitments offered by the Appellant and Haniel as insufficient.

      (1)  OJ L 180, p. 1.


title: Case C-45/07: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 February 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Articles 10 EC, 71 EC and 80(2) EC — Maritime safety — Monitoring of ships and port facilities — International agreements — Division of powers between the Community and the Member States)

text:
               4.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/3

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 February 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-45/07) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Articles 10 EC, 71 EC and 80(2) EC - Maritime safety - Monitoring of ships and port facilities - International agreements - Division of powers between the Community and the Member States)
   (2009/C 82/04)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: K. Simonsson, M. Konstantinidis, F. Hoffmeister and I. Zervas, Agents)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: A. Samoni-Rantou and S. Chala, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: I. Rao, Agent, and D. Anderson QC)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 10, 71 and 80(2) of the EC Treaty — Submission to an international organisation of a proposal which falls within a field covered by exclusive Community external competence — Maritime safety — Proposal for monitoring the compliance of ships and port facilities with the requirements of Chapter XI-2 of SOLAS and the ISPS Code
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by submitting to the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) a proposal (MSC 80/5/11) for monitoring the compliance of ships and port facilities with the requirements of Chapter XI-2 of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, concluded in London on 1 November 1974, and the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 10 EC, 71 EC and 80(2) EC.

               2.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 14.4.2007.


title: Case T-714/14: Judgment of the General Court of 23 October 2015 — David Bonney v OHIM — Bruno (ATHEIST) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark ATHEIST — Earlier national word mark athé — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               14.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 414/31

         Judgment of the General Court of 23 October 2015 — David Bonney v OHIM — Bruno (ATHEIST)
   (Case T-714/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark ATHEIST - Earlier national word mark athé - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 414/40)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: David Bonney (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: D. Farnsworth, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: initially by L. Rampini, and subsequently by D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Vanessa Bruno (Paris, France)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 August 2015 (Case R 803/2013-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Ms Vanessa Bruno and Mr David Bonney.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr David Bonney to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

      (1)  OJ C 431, 1.12.2014.


title: Information Notice — Public Consultation — Geographical indication from the Republic of South Africa

text:
               7.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/3

         INFORMATION NOTICE — PUBLIC CONSULTATION
   Geographical indication from the Republic of South Africa
   (2015/C 45/03)
   Within the ongoing finalisation of an agreement with the Republic of South Africa in the form of a Protocol on protection of geographical indications (hereafter the Protocol), the South African authorities have provided additional information concerning a Geographical Indication (GI) for agricultural product that was presented, for protection under the Protocol in addition to list published in the notice 2014/C051/09 (1). The European Commission is currently considering whether this GI, annexed hereto, shall be protected under the Protocol as a GI within the meaning of Article 22(1) of the TRIPS Agreement.
   The Commission invites any Member State or third country or any natural or legal person having a legitimate interest, resident or established in a Member State or in a third country, to submit oppositions to such protection by lodging a duly substantiated statement.
   Statements of opposition must reach the Commission within two months of the date of this publication. Statements of opposition should be sent to the following e-mail address:
   AGRI-A3-GI@ec.europa.eu
   Statements of opposition shall be examined only if they are received within the time limit set out above and if they show that the protection of the name proposed would:

               (a)

               conflict with the name of an animal breed and as a result is likely to mislead the consumer as to the true origin of the product;

               (b)

               be wholly or partially homonymous with that of a name already protected in the Union under Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (2), or contained in the agreements the Union has concluded with the following countries:

                           —

                           Switzerland (3),

                           —

                           Korea (4),

                           —

                           Central America (5),

                           —

                           Colombia and Peru (6),

                           —

                           Montenegro (7),

                           —

                           Bosnia and Herzegovina (8),

                           —

                           Serbia (9),

                           —

                           Moldova (10),

                           —

                           Georgia (11);

               (c)

               in the light of a trade mark’s reputation and renown and the length of time it has been used, be liable to mislead the consumer as to the true identity of the product;

               (d)

               jeopardise the existence of an entirely or partly identical name or of a trade mark or the existence of products which have been legally on the market for at least five years preceding the date of the publication of this notice;

               (e)

               or if they can give details from which it can be concluded that the name for which protection is considered is generic.

         The criteria referred to above shall be evaluated in relation to the territory of the Union, which in the case of intellectual property rights refers only to the territory or territories where the said rights are protected.

      (1)  OJ C 51, 22.2.2014, p. 22.

      (2)  OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

      (3)  Decision 2002/309/EC, Euratom of the Council, and of the Commission as regards the Agreement on Scientific and Technological Cooperation of 4 April 2002 on the conclusion of seven Agreements with the Swiss Confederation (OJ L 114, 30.4.2002, p. 1) and in particular the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Federation on trade in agricultural products — Annex 7.

      (4)  Council Decision 2011/265/EU of 16 September 2010 on the signing, on behalf of the European Union, and provisional application of the Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Korea, of the other part (OJ L 127, 14.5.2011, p. 1).

      (5)  Agreement establishing an Association between the European Union and its Member States, on the one hand, and Central America on the other (OJ L 346, 15.12.2012, p. 3).

      (6)  Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and Colombia and Peru, of the other part (OJ L 354, 21.12.2012, p. 3).

      (7)  Council Decision 2007/855/EC of 15 October 2007 concerning the signing and conclusion of the Interim Agreement on trade and trade-related matters between the European Community, of the one part, and the Republic of Montenegro, of the other part (OJ L 345, 28.12.2007, p. 1).

      (8)  Council Decision 2008/474/EC of 16 June 2008 on the signing and conclusion of the Interim Agreement on trade and trade-related matters between the European Community, of the one part, and Bosnia and Herzegovina, of the other part (OJ L 169, 30.6.2008, p. 10) — Protocol 6.

      (9)  Council Decision 2010/36/EC of 29 April 2008 concerning the signing and conclusion of the Interim Agreement on trade and trade-related matters between the European Community, of the one part, and the Republic of Serbia, of the other part (OJ L 28, 30.1.2010, p. 1).

      (10)  Council Decision 2013/7/EU of 3 December 2012 on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Moldova on the protection of geographical indications of agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 10, 15.1.2013, p. 3).

      (11)  Council Decision 2012/164/EU of 14 February 2012 on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and Georgia on the protection of geographical indications of agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 93, 30.3.2012, p. 1).

      ANNEX

                  Type of product

                  Name as protected in South Africa

                  meat product

                  Karoo meat of origin


title: Case T-65/14: Judgment of the General Court of 30 November 2016 — Bank Refah Kargaran v Council (Common Foreign and Security Policy — Restrictive measures against Iran — Freezing of funds — Further listing of the applicant after annulment of the initial listing by the General Court — Error in law — Error in fact — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Proportionality)

text:
               23.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/21

         Judgment of the General Court of 30 November 2016 — Bank Refah Kargaran v Council
   (Case T-65/14) (1)

   ((Common Foreign and Security Policy - Restrictive measures against Iran - Freezing of funds - Further listing of the applicant after annulment of the initial listing by the General Court - Error in law - Error in fact - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Proportionality))
   (2017/C 022/27)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Bank Refah Kargaran (Teheran, Iran) (represented by: J.-M. Thouvenin, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: V. Piessevaux, M. Bishop and B. Driessen, agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Aresu and D. Gauci, agents)

      Re:

   Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking, principally, annulment of Council Decision 2013/661/CFSP of 15 November 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2010 L 306, p. 18), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1154/2013 of 15 November 2013, implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 306, p. 3), in so far as those acts concern the applicant, and, in the alternative, annulment of Decision 2013/661 and of Implementing Regulation No 1154/2013 in so far as those acts concern the applicant as from 20 January 2014.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Bank Refah Kargaran to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 135, 5.5.2014.


title: Case F-146/15: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 8 June 2016 — Massoulié v Parliament (Civil service — Officials — Parliament — Inter-institutional transfer — 2014 promotion exercise — Request seeking the conversion of staff reports into merit points — Reclassification of a complaint as a request — Article 90 of the Staff Regulations — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               18.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/52

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 8 June 2016 — Massoulié v Parliament
   (Case F-146/15) (1)

   ((Civil service - Officials - Parliament - Inter-institutional transfer - 2014 promotion exercise - Request seeking the conversion of staff reports into merit points - Reclassification of a complaint as a request - Article 90 of the Staff Regulations - Manifest inadmissibility))
   (2016/C 260/65)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: François Massoulié (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: V. Montebello-Demogeot and M. Dean, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the Parliament’s decision rejecting the applicant’s request for the staff reports drawn up since his promotion to grade AD 12 to be converted into merit points.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               Mr François Massoulié’s action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               Mr Massoulié is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament.

      (1)  OJ C 68, 22.2.2016, p. 45.


title: Case C-459/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 3 October 2014  — Fadil Cocaj v Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatal

text:
               12.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/12

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 3 October 2014 — Fadil Cocaj v Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatal
   (Case C-459/14)
   (2015/C 007/17)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Fadil Cocaj

      Defendant: Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatal

      Question referred

               1)

               What is the precise formal and substantive content and the requirements of the registration referred to in Article 2(2)(b) of Directive 2004/38/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004?

               2)

               In what manner, in what form and before which authority must the registration referred to in Article 2(2)(b) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 take place? If the registration has to be effected through an authority, what formal and substantive criteria must that authority fulfil in the Member State in question?

               3)

               Can the above provisions of the directive — having regard to the content of Article 37 — be interpreted as meaning that the provisions relating to partners concern only different-sex partners or do they also concern same-sex partners?

               4)

               If the legislation of a Member State grants the status of family member within the meaning of the directive to registered partners, can the directive be interpreted as relating only to different-sex partners?

               5)

               Can the directive be interpreted as meaning for the purposes of its application, that a registered partnership must be considered to exist if the party appears in the Member State’s register of declarations of partnership?

               6)

               Can the above provisions of the directive be interpreted as meaning that if a Member State’s legislation does not treat the registered partnership as equivalent in all respects to marriage, such partnerships do not in any circumstances confer the status of family member, even having regard to Article 37?

               7)

               Can the above provisions of the directive be interpreted as meaning that the equivalence to marriage must encompass all legal situations and consequences? If full equivalence is not required, what aspects of the two statuses must be the same in any event?

               8)

               Is it or might it be relevant for the purposes of the application of the above provisions of the directive, whether the legislation of a Member State distinguishes between statutory recording (‘bejegyzés’) and registration (‘regisztráció’) or uses the terms interchangeably?

               9)

               Can Article 37 of the directive be interpreted as meaning that legislation of a Member State which does not provide that partnerships are to be equivalent to marriage must be regarded as more favourable national legislation under Article 37?

      (1)  Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC; OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77.


title: Case T-43/01: Action brought on 23 February 2001 by Jean-Jacques Rateau against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 118/42              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      21.4.2001
Grounds submitted:            — Infringement of Article 7(1)b            The applicant states that, nearly four years after its complaint,
                                  of Regulation n. 40/94.                the Commission has not taken any provisional measure or
                              — Infringement of Article 7(3) of          adopted a definitive decision, and that the contested system is
                                  Regulation n. 40/94.                   therefore still being applied, even though it was accepted by
                                                                         the Commission from the start of the procedure that it was
                              — Infringement of the appli-               not consistent with Community law.
                                  cant’s right of defence.
Action brought on 22 February 2001 by Syndicat des
employés, techniciens et cadres de la F.G.T.B. against
         Commission of the European Communities                          Action brought on 23 February 2001 by Jean-Jacques
                                                                         Rateau against the Commission of the European Com-
                         (Case T-42/01)                                                              munities
                       (2001/C 118/113)                                                           (Case T-43/01)
                   (Language of the case: French)                                               (2001/C 118/114)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 22 February 2001 by Syndicat des                                    (Language of the case: French)
employés, techniciens et cadres de la F.G.T.B., established in
Brussels, represented by Luc Misson, Laurent Denis and
Patrick Mbaya Kapita, Avocats, with an address for service in            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Luxembourg.                                                              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 23 February 2001 by Jean-Jacques
                                                                         Rateau, residing in Beersel (Belgium), represented by Eric
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Boigelot, avocat, address for service in Luxembourg.
—     Declare that the Commission failed to adopt the necessary
      measures within a reasonable time following the appli-             The applicant claims that the Court should:
      cant’s complaint on the basis of Article 3 of Regulation
      No 17;
                                                                         —    annul the decision of the appointing authority to assign
—     Declare that the Commission is obliged to take the                      the applicant, with effect from 1 July 2000, to the post
      necessary measures within one month against the parties                 of adviser on consumer information working to the Head
      complained against in the applicant’s complaint pursuant                of Unit Health and Consumer Protection SANCO.D.4
      to Regulation No 17;                                                    ‘Food law and biotechnology’, as it emerges from the
                                                                              organisational chart for DG SANCO of 15 June 2000 and
                                                                              the explicit decision adopted on 1 August 2000 by
—     Order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                              Mr Robert Coleman, Director General of the Directorate-
                                                                              General ‘Consumer policy and consumer health protec-
                                                                              tion’, brought to the applicant’s notice on 28 August
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               2000;
The applicant states that on 1 July 1997 it lodged a complaint           —    order the defendant to pay to the applicant, as compen-
on the basis of Articles 48 and 85 of the EC Treaty (now                      sation for non-material damage, BEF 1 as provisional
Articles 39 EC and 81 EC) concerning the transfer system for                  damages in respect of injury assessed at BEF 10 000,
professional football players applied by organisations such as                subject to increase or decrease in the course of proceed-
FIFA, URBSFA and the Ligue professionelle de Football de                      ings;
Belgique. Following that complaint, registered under
No IV/36.583-SETCA-FGTB/FIFA, URBSFA, the Commission
initiated a procedure against FIFA.                                      —    in any event, order the defendant to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 21.4.2001             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 118/43
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                InformationRemoval from the Register of Case
                                                                                T-116/98 (1)
The defendant, an official in Grade A 3, contests the decision                                  (2001/C 118/116)
of the appointing authority, taken in the context of the
reorganisation of DG SANCO, to reassign him to the post of
Adviser to the Head of Unit of Directorate D (Unit D4) ‘Food                               (Language of the case: Spanish)
law and biotechnology’, despite the fact that until then he had
carried out those duties for the Director General.
                                                                         By order of 14 December 2000, the President of the Second
                                                                         Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
He explains in that regard that his appointment to the post of           Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of
adviser to the Director General was the result of an agreement           Case T-116/98, Compañı́a Trasmediterránea, S.A. v Com-
signed on 6 July 1993 between the applicant himself and the              mission of the European Communities.
Director General of DG Administration (formerly DG IX).
                                                                         (1) OJ C 340 of 7.11.98.
In support of his arguments, the applicant alleges the following
infringements:
—     infringement of the Staff Regulations, in particular
      Article 7(1), and the second and third paragraphs of
      Article 25, as well as failure to observe a number of
      general principles of law, such as the protection of                     Removal from the Register of Case T-244/99 (1)
      legitimate expectations, legal certainty, the duty to have
      regard for the welfare of officials, the principle pacta sunt                             (2001/C 118/117)
      observanda and those which require the appointing
      authority to adopt decisions only on the basis of relevant
      factors which are not vitiated by errors of fact or law.                              (Language of the case: Italian)
—     infringement of rules common to the Member States with             By order of 12 December 2000, the President of the Fifth
      regard to performance of contracts.                                Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                         Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of
                                                                         Case T-244/99, Sadam Abruzzo SpA v Commission of the
                                                                         European Communities.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 20 of 22.10.2000.
       Removal from the Register of Case T-205/96 (1)
                       (2001/C 118/115)                                        Removal from the Register of Case T-245/99 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/118)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
By order of 15 January 2001, the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities (Single Judge: J. Azizi), has ordered the           By order of 12 December 2000, the President of the Fifth
removal from the Register of Case T-205/96, Roland Bieber                Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
v European Parliament.                                                   Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of
                                                                         Case T-245/99, Sadam Castiglionese SpA v Commission of
                                                                         the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 54 of 22.2.1997.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 20 of 22.01.2000.