title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 8 February 2001 in Case T-240/00: Lars Bo Rasmussen v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Inadmissibility — Claim for damages — Manifestly inadmissible)

text:
19.5.2001              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 150/29
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 —     for the rest, reverse the decision;
                       of 8 February 2001
                                                                           —     find that ENANTYUM should be refused registration as a
in Case T-240/00: Lars Bo Rasmussen v Commission of                              Community trade mark;
                the European Communities (1)
                                                                           —     order Laboratorios Menarini to pay the costs.
(Action for annulment — Inadmissibility — Claim for
             damages — Manifestly inadmissible)
                         (2001/C 150/57)                                   Pleas in law and main arguments
                  (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           Applicant for the Com-          Laboratorios Menarini, S.A.
In Case T-240/00: Lars Bo Rasmussen, official at the Com-                  munity trade mark:
mission of the European Communities, residing in Dalheim
(Luxembourg), represented by M. Karp and J. Choucroun,                     Trade mark:                     Word mark ‘ENANTYUM’ —
avocats, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against                                                application no. 14720.
the Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
C. Berardis-Kayser and D. Martin) — application for the                    Goods or services:              Certain goods and services in class
annulment of the decision taken by the Commission in                                                       5 (including anti-inflammatory
compliance with the judgment of the Court of First Instance                                                non-steroid painkillers).
of 14 April 1999 T-50/98 Rasmussen v Commission [1999]
ECR-SC I-A-63 and II-319 and a claim for damages — the
Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of                      Trade marks raised in           (Decision of 15 December 2000
A.W.H. Meij, President, A. Potocki and J. Pirrung, Judges;                 the opposition proceed-         in the proceedings in Case R-
H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 8 February 2001, the                  ings:                           222/1999-2)
operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                                French word mark ‘ENANTONE’
1.   The application is dismissed as inadmissible;                                                         and Finnish, Swedish and Danish
                                                                                word mark ‘ENANTON’ for phar-
2.   Each of the parties shall bear its own costs.                                                         maceutical products in class 5.
(1) OJ C 302 of 21.10.00.
                                                                           Owner of the opposing           The applicant.
                                                                           marks:
                                                                           Decision         contested      Refusal of the application for
                                                                           before the Board of             registration.
Action brought on 19 February 2001 by Takeda Chemical
                                                                           Appeal:
Industries Ltd. against the Office for Harmonisation in
       the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                                                                           Decision of the Board of        Annulment of the decision of the
                          (Case T-37/01)                                   Appeal:                         Opposition Division and dis-
                                                                                missal of the opposition.
                         (2001/C 150/58)
                                                                           Pleas in law relied on:         Misconstruction of Article 43(2)
                                                                                of the Community Trade Mark
                  (Language of the case: French)                                                           Regulation (1) — Absence of any
                                                                                request to provide evidence of use
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                                             of the marks — Similarity of the
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the                                                    goods — Likelihood of confusion.
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
19 February 2001 by Takeda Chemical Industries Ltd. of
Osaka, Japan, represented by Thierry Mollet-Vieville, Avocat,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.                                 (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 fo 20 December 1993 on the
                                                                               Community trade mark (OJ L 11, p. 1).
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—    confirm the decision of the Second Board of Appeal
     holding the signs ENANTYUM, ENANTONE and ENTAN-
     TON to be similar;


title: Case C-536/07: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 October 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Public works contracts — Directive 93/37/EEC — Contract between a public body and a private undertaking for the lease to the former of exhibition halls to be built by the latter — Private undertaking to be paid by means of a monthly rent for a period of 30 years)

text:
               19.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 312/2

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 October 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-536/07) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Public works contracts - Directive 93/37/EEC - Contract between a public body and a private undertaking for the lease to the former of exhibition halls to be built by the latter - Private undertaking to be paid by means of a monthly rent for a period of 30 years)
   2009/C 312/03
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Kukovec and R. Sauer, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma and J. Möller, acting as Agents, and by H.-J. Prieß, Rechtsanwalt)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 7 in conjunction with Article 11 of Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 54) — Failure to organise an open procedure for award of a contract before the conclusion of a contract between the City of Cologne and a private investment firm concerning the rent by the city, for a fixed period of 30 years in consideration for a total rent of more than EUR 600 million, of four exhibition halls to be constructed by that private firm in accordance with detailed contract documents

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 7(4) and 11 of Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts by reason of the fact that the City of Cologne concluded the contract of 6 August 2004 with Grundstücksgesellschaft Köln Messe 15 bis 18 GbR, now Grundstücksgesellschaft Köln Messe 8-11 GbR, without applying the procedure for the award of public contracts laid down by those provisions;

               2.

               Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 51, 23.2.2008.


title: Case T-106/99: Action brought on 30 April 1999 by Karl L. Meyer against Commission of the European Communities

text:
7.8.1999               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 226/31
Action brought on 30 April 1999 by Karl L. Meyer against                Action brought on 30 April 1999 by Maria Soledad Garcia
         Commission of the European Communities                            Retortillo against the Council of the European Union
                        (Case T-106/99)                                                          (Case T-107/99)
                        (1999/C 226/55)                                                          (1999/C 226/56)
                  (Language of the case: French)                                           (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-               An action against the Council of the European Union was
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the              brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
European Communities on 30 April 1999 by Karl L. Meyer,                 Communities on 30 April 1999 by Maria Soledad Garcia
residing at Uturoa, Raiatea (French Polynesia), represented by          Retortillo, residing in Spain, represented by Jean-Noël Louis,
Jean-Dominique des Arcis, of the Papeete Bar, with an address           Françoise Parmentier and Véronique Peere, of the Brussels Bar,
for service in Luxembourg at the address of Mr Pakowski,                with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
20-22 Avenue Emile Reuter.                                              Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        — annul the decision to exclude the applicant from the scope
— hold that Directorate-General VIII of the Commission                       of the detailer arrangements for the integration of the
    infringed several provision on the transparency of acts of               Schengen Secretariat into the Genera Secretariat of the
    the European Economic Community;                                         Council;
— in addition, order the Commission to pay to the applicant             — annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decisions of the
    the sum of FRF 20 000 ( in respect of irrecoverable                      appointing authority to appoint ‘en bloc’ as officials of the
    expenses incurred by him in protecting his interests.                    European Communities only those persons who were
                                                                             agents of the Schengen Secretariat on 2 October 1997,
                                                                             and to integrate them into its services;
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        — order the defendant to pay the costs.
The applicant challenges the Commission’s refusal to send him
certain information, in particular the rates of interest on the
risk capital made available to French Polynesia from 1986 to            Pleas in law and main arguments
1989 and from 1995 to 1998 under the Council decisions
relating to the association of the PTOM to the EEC of 16                The Treaty of Amsterdam provides, by means of the Protocol
December 1990, 30 June 1986, 25 July 1991 and 24                        integrating the Schengen acquis into the framework of the
November 1997.                                                          European Union, for the Schengen Secretariat to be integrated
                                                                        into the General Secretariat of the Council.
In support of his claims the applicant alleges that the
Commission:                                                             The applicant, who was employed in the Schengen Secretariat
                                                                        as a translator from 1 January 1993 to 30 September 1994, is
— failed to fulfil its obligation to provide reasons for its acts;      currently working as a freelance translator. Since the appoint-
                                                                        ing authority has not requested her to undergo a pre-
— breached of the Code of Conduct enshrined in 97/730/EC                appointment medical examination or to provide documenta-
    on public access to Council and Commission documents;               tion proving that she fulfils the conditions referred to in Article
                                                                        28 of the Staff Regulations, she regards herself as having
                                                                        been definitively eliminated from the scope of the detailed
— disregarded the Commission Communication of 5 May                     arrangements for the integration of the Schengen Secretariat
    1993 on public access to Community institution docu-                into the General Secretariat of the Council.
    ments;
— infringed the decision of the Council of 20 December                  According to the applicant, Article 5 of the decision of the
    1993 relating to public access to Council documents; and            Council of 30 April 1999 states that it is to enter into force on
                                                                        the date of its adoption and is to take effect on the date of the
                                                                        entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam. It follows that
— infringed Commission Decision 94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom
                                                                        the contested decision of the Council has been adopted on the
    of 8 February 1994 on public access to Commission
                                                                        basis of the provisions of a Treaty which has not yet entered
    documents.
                                                                        into force. The illegality vitiating the Council’s decision affects
                                                                        all the decisions adopted pursuant thereto and, in particular,
                                                                        the decisions of the appointing authority concerning the
                                                                        appointment of agents of the Schengen Secretariat.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 November 2003 in Case C-501/01: Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission of the European Communities (Commission Decision 2001/739/EC of 17 October 2001 on the total amount of Community aid for the eradication of classical swine fever in the Netherlands in 1998)

text:
10.1.2004              EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                C 7/15
Chamber, C. Gulmann, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, J.-P. Puissochet                 teur), F. Macken, N. Colneric and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges;
and F. Macken, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; H. von                  A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 20 Nov-                 judgment on 6 November 2003, in which it:
ember 2003, in which it has ruled:
                                                                            1.    Dismisses the action.
1.   If, in the exercise of its power of administrative review of a
     merger of undertakings, the competent authority of a Member
     State deems it necessary to redistribute sugar production quotas       2.    Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay
     among undertakings situated in its territory in order to                     the costs.
     safeguard competition, the provisions of Council Regulation
     (EEC) No 1785/81 of 30 June 1981 on the common
     organisation of the markets in the sugar sector and Council            (1) OJ C 31 of 2.2.2002.
     Regulation (EEC) No 193/82 of 26 January 1982 laying
     down general rules for transfers of quotas in the sugar sector
     preclude that authority from stipulating that such a transfer or
     reallocation of quotas should be for value.
2.   The entry into force of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/
     2001 of 19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the
     markets in the sugar sector does not alter the interpretation of
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
     Community law.
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
(1) OJ C 84 of 6.4.2002.
                                                                                of 6 November 2003
                                                                            in Case C-501/01: Kingdom of the Netherlands v Com-
                                                                                mission of the European Communities (1)
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                            (Commission Decision 2001/739/EC of 17 October 2001 on
                                                                            the total amount of Community aid for the eradication of
                         (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                classical swine fever in the Netherlands in 1998)
                      of 6 November 2003
                                                                                (2004/C 7/25)
in Case C-434/01: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern                                             (Language of the case: Dutch)
                             Ireland (1)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive                                   in the European Court Reports)
92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats — Wild
                          fauna and flora)
                           (2004/C 7/24)                                    In Case C-501/01, Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agents:
                                                                            H. G. Sevenster, C. Wissels and J. G. M. van Bakel) v
                   (Language of the case: English)                          Commission of the European Communities (Agent: T. van
                                                                            Rijn): Application for annulment of Commission Decision
                                                                            2001/739/EC of 17 October 2001 on the total amount of
                                                                            Community aid for the eradication of classical swine fever in
In Case C-434/01, Commission of the European Communities                    the Netherlands in 1998 (OJ 2001 L 277, p. 28), in so far as
(Agent: R. Wainwright) v United Kingdom of Great Britain and                the determination of the total amount of Community financial
Northern Ireland (Agents: G. Amodeo and K. Manji, assisted                  aid for the eradication of classical swine fever in the Nether-
by D. Anderson): Application for a declaration that, by not                 lands in 1998 provides for a reduction of 25 % of the
ensuring observance in its territory of Articles 12 and 16                  compensation paid to farmers, the Court (Fifth Chamber),
of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the                        composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Fourth
conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora                Chamber, acting as President of the Fifth Chamber,
(OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7), the United Kingdom of Great Britain                  D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr, Judges; C. Stix-
and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under             Hackl, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Adminis-
that directive, the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-                 trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 November
P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rappor-                2003, in which it:
 ---pagebreak--- C 7/16                   EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                             10.1.2004
1.    Dismisses the application.                                                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
2.    Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
(1) OJ C 84 of 6.4.2002.
                                                                                of 6 November 2003
                                                                             in Case C-78/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                             the Dioikitiko Efeteio Athinon): Elliniko Dimosio v Maria
                                                                             Karageorgou (C-78/02), Katina Petrova (C-79/02), Loukas
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                              Vlachos (C-80/02) (1)
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                             (Sixth VAT Directive — Article 21(1)(c) — Persons liable
                       of 13 November 2003                                   to tax — Person mentioning the tax on an invoice — Tax
                                                                             paid in error by a non-taxable person and included in the
                                                                                invoice established by that person)
in Case C-42/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Ålands förvaltningsdomstol): Diana Elisabeth
                              Lindman (1)
                                                                                (2004/C 7/27)
(Freedom to provide services — Lottery tickets — Amount
won in a game of chance held in another Member State —
Income tax — Tax on games of chance — Special regime in                                           (Language of the case: Greek)
                          the Åland Islands)
                            (2004/C 7/26)                                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                   (Language of the case: Swedish)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             In Joined Cases C-78/02 to C-80/02: References to the Court
                                                                             under Article 234 EC by the Diikitiko Efetio Athinon (Greece)
                                                                             for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
                                                                             court between Elliniko Dimosio and Maria Karageorgou (C-78/
In Case C-42/02: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
                                                                             02), Katina Petrova (C-79/02), Loukas Vlachos (C-80/02), on
by the Ålands förvaltningsdomstolen (Finland) for a prelimi-
                                                                             the interpretation of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC
nary ruling in the proceedings brought before that court by
                                                                             of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the
Diana Elisabeth Lindman, on the interpretation of
                                                                             Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system
Article 49 EC, the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
                                                                             of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977
C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Fourth Chamber, acting
                                                                             L 145, p. 1) and in particular the rule in Article 21(1)(c) of that
as President of the Fifth Chamber, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur)
                                                                             directive to the effect that VAT is payable by any person who
and P. Jann, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; L. Hew-
                                                                             mentions VAT on an invoice, the Court (Sixth Chamber),
lett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
                                                                             composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber,
judgment on 13 November 2003, in which it has ruled:
                                                                             R. Schintgen, V. Skouris, N. Colneric and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues
                                                                             (Rapporteur), Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; H. von
Article 49 EC prohibits a Member State’s legislation under which             Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 Novem-
winnings from games of chance organised in other Member States               ber 2003, in which it has ruled:
are treated as income of the winner chargeable to income tax, whereas
winnings from games of chance conducted in the Member State in
question are not taxable.
                                                                             1.    The amount mentioned as value added tax on the invoice drawn
                                                                                up by a person providing services to the State may not be
(1) OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.
                                                                                classified as value added tax where that person erroneously
                                                                                believes that he is providing those services as a self-employed
                                                                                person whilst in reality there is an employer-employee relation-
                                                                                ship.


title: Case C-249/06: Action brought on  2 June 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden

text:
               29.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/27

         Action brought on 2 June 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden
   (Case C-249/06)
   (2006/C 178/43)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Tufvesson, B. Martenczuk and H. Stølvbæk, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Sweden
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to take appropriate steps to eliminate the incompatibilities between Sweden's bilateral investment agreement with the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, together with 16 further bilateral investment agreements, and the EC Treaty, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under the second paragraph of Article 307 EC;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The agreements are incompatible with Community law since they do not permit the application of Community measures based in Articles 57(2) EC, 59 EC and 60 EC. Further, Sweden has not taken steps to rectify the situation. Thus Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under the second paragraph of Article 307 EC to take all appropriate steps to eliminate all incompatibilities between the Treaty and the investment agreements.


title: Case T-79/00: Action brought on 4 April 2000 by Rewe-Zentral AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
10.6.2000             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 163/29
The applicants claim that the Court of First Instance should:           Pleas in law and main arguments
— Annul part nine of Annex ID to Council Regulation (EC)
    No 2742/1999 of 17 December 1999 fixing for 2000 the                The trade mark con-           verbal mark ‘LITE’ — application
    fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain         cerned:                       No 214932
    fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in
    Community waters and, for Community vessels, in waters              Goods or service con-         Goods and services in Classes 5,
    where limitations in catch are required and amending                cerned:                       29, 30, 32 and 33 (essentially
    Regulation (EC) No 66/98;                                                                         foodstuffs and beverages)
— Annul point 1, 1.1, second subparagraph, indent (i), of               Decision contested be-        Refusal of registration by the
    Annex IV to Council Regulation (EC) No 685/95 of                    fore the Board of Ap-         examiner
    27 March 1995 on the management of the fishing effort               peal:
    relating to certain Community fishing areas and resources,
    on the basis of the reasons stated, in so far as the Council        Grounds of claim:             — Denial by the Board of Appeal
    approved, for the year 2000, an analytical TAC for Zone                                               of the right to a fair hearing
    VIII and a common TAC is not possible; and                                                        — Misapplication of Article
                                                                                7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No
— Order the Commission to pay the costs.                                                                  40/94
                                                                                — Misapplication of Article
                                                                                7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                           40/94
The pleas in law and supporting arguments are the same as
those put forward in Case T-54/00 FCPG and Others v Council.
                                                                        Action brought on 6 April 2000 by Hänseler GmbH and
                                                                        Schuck GmbH against the Commission of the European
Action brought on 4 April 2000 by Rewe-Zentral AG                                                 Communities
against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
              Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                                                                                (Case T-83/00)
                         (Case T-79/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 163/58)
                        (2000/C 163/57)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the                 European Communities on 6 April 2000 by Hänseler GmbH,
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                  of Konstanz, Germany, and Schuck GmbH, of Schwaig,
4 April 2000 by Rewe-Zentral AG, of Cologne (Federal                    Germany, represented by Burkhard Sträter, Rechtsanwalt,
Republic of Germany), represented by Maximilian Kinkeldey,              Bonn, Germany.
Rechtsanwalt, of Messrs Grünecker, Kinkeldey, Stockmair &
Schwarthäusser, Munich (Federal Republic of Germany).
                                                                        The applicants claim that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        — annul Commission Decision K (2000) 608 of 9 March
— annul the decision adopted on 27 January 2000 by the                      2000;
    Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in
    the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) in the                — in the alternative, annul the Commission’s decision in so
    appeal proceedings registered under number R 275/                       far as Article 1 in conjunction with Annex I thereof
    1999-3;                                                                 requires the Member State Germany to withdraw the
                                                                            authorisations for the applicants’ medicinal products con-
— order the defendant to pay the costs.                                     taining norpseudoephredin;


title: Case C-335/01: Action brought on 7 September 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
10.11.2001            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 317/15
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsge-                     intended to facilitate for these operators the right to
richt Frankfurt am Main by order of that court of 17 July                    freedom of establishment in national and international
2001 in the ,case of Glencore Grain Rotterdam B.V.                           transport operations (1), as regards the transportation of
 against Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung                      passengers, or at any rate by failing to notify those
                                                                             measures to the Commission, the French Republic has
                                                                             failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
                         (Case C-334/01)
                                                                       (2) order the French Republic to pay the costs.
                         (2001/C 317/26)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht
Frankfurt am Main (Administrative Court, Frankfurt am Main)            Pleas in law and main arguments
of 17 July 2001, received at the Court Registry on 7 September
2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Glencore
Grain Rotterdam B.V. v Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und            The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
Ernährung on the following question:                                   advanced in Case C-323/01 (2); the time-limit for transposition
                                                                       expired on 1 October 1999.
Should the second indent of the second subparagraph of
Article 8(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2372/95 of
10 October 1995 (1) be interpreted as meaning that                     (1) OJ L 277 of 14.10.1998, p. 17.
Article 47(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of             (2) See page 12 of this Official Journal.
27 November 1987 (2) must be simply applied by analogy, so
that the 12-month time-limit for supplying proof of import-
ation into the ACP State concerned does not begin to run until
the primary obligation imposed by that regulation, namely
importation into the ACP State, is fulfilled?
(1) OJ 1995 L 242, p. 3.
(2) OJ 1987 L 351, p. 1.
                                                                       Action brought on 7 September 2001 by the Commission
                                                                       of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                                                                                Belgium
                                                                                (Case C-336/01)
Action brought on 7 September 2001 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the French Republic                                           (2001/C 317/28)
                         (Case C-335/01)
                                                                       An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
                                                                       before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                         (2001/C 317/27)                               7 September 2001 by the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities, represented by M. Wolfcarius, acting as Agent,
                                                                       with an address for service in Luxembourg.
An action against the French Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 7 September
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by M. Wolfcarius, acting as Agent, with an address         The Commission of the European Communities claims that
for service in Luxembourg.                                             the Court should:
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                 1.    declare that, by failing to adopt ale the laws, regulations
the Court should:                                                            and administrative measures necessary in order to comply
                                                                             with Directive 98/78/EC of the European Parliament and
                                                                             of the Council of 27 October 1998 on the supplementary
(1) declare that, by fading to adopt all the laws, regulations
                                                                             supervision of insurance undertakings in an insurance
      and administrative measures necessary in order to comply
                                                                             group (1), or at any rate by failing to notify those measures
      with Council Directive 98/76/EC of 1 October 1998
                                                                             to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed
      amending Directive 96/26/EC on admission to the occu-
                                                                             to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
      pation of road haulage operator and road passenger
      transport operator and mutual recognition of diplomas,
      certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications         2.    order Belgium to pay the costs.


title: Case C-209/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije (Slovenia) lodged on 25 April 2014  — NLB Leasing d.o.o. v The Republic of Slovenia

text:
               30.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 202/15

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije (Slovenia) lodged on 25 April 2014 — NLB Leasing d.o.o. v The Republic of Slovenia
   (Case C-209/14)
   2014/C 202/18
   Language of the case: Slovenian

      Referring court

   Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: NLB Leasing d.o.o.

      Defendant: The Republic of Slovenia — Ministrstvo za finance

      Questions referred

               1.

               Having regard to circumstances such as those of the case in the main proceedings, on a proper construction of Article 90(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, does the return of the property that is the object of a lease agreement (immovable property), as a result of the lessee’s failure to perform its obligations in full, into the possession of the lessor for the purposes of its subsequent sale and performance of the other obligations under the lease agreement, once all the payment instalments under the lease have fallen due, constitute a case of ‘cancellation, refusal or total or partial non-payment’ after the supply has taken place, in consequence of which the basis of assessment is to be reduced accordingly?

               2.

               On a proper construction of Articles 2, 14 and 24(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, must the financial consideration relating to a purchase option be regarded as consideration for the performance of the agreement and as a supply of goods and, as such, subject to VAT, when it represents the greater part of the total amount due under a financial leasing agreement and is paid by the lessee to the lessor in such a way that, as a result of the failure in part to perform obligations, the lessor regains possession of the subject-matter of the lease agreement, sells it to a third party and pays the excess of the sale price to the lessee after deducting, in the final account, the sum relating to the purchase option, or must it be regarded as consideration for the service of the rent of, or for the use of, the property (and, as such, subject to VAT by law or at the option of the taxable persons), or must it rather be regarded as compensation for damage for the termination of the agreement, paid in order to make good the loss caused by the lessee’s failure to perform and having no direct connection with any provision of services for consideration and, as such, not subject to VAT?

               3.

               If the answer to the second question should be that the sum in question is to be regarded as consideration for the supply of goods and the performance of the agreement, does the principle of the neutrality of VAT preclude a lessor’s having to pay output VAT twice, that is to say, once on the conclusion of a financial leasing agreement (including in respect of the purchase option, which represented the greater part of the contract value) and, as a result of the lessee’s failure to fulfil its obligations in full, a second time, on the subsequent sale of the immovable property in question to a third party, even though the liability to pay VAT on the second supply has been passed on to the lessee in the final account?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: Case T-452/16: Action brought on 10 August 2016 — sheepworld v EUIPO (Beste Freundin)

text:
               3.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 364/26

      Action brought on 10 August 2016 — sheepworld v EUIPO (Beste Freundin)
      (Case T-452/16)
      (2016/C 364/29)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: sheepworld AG (Ursensollen, Germany) (represented by: S. von Rüden, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘Beste Freundin’ — Application for registration No 14 169 916

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 May 2016 in Case R 96/2016-4

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs including the costs incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.

         Plea in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case F-91/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 21 July 2016 — AV v Commission (Civil Service — Member of the temporary staff — Appointment — Medical examination preceding appointment — Incomplete declarations at the medical examination — Medical reservation — Retroactive application of the medical reservation — Not eligible for the invalidity allowance — Annulment — Execution of a judgment of the General Court)

text:
               3.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 364/32

      Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 21 July 2016 — AV v Commission
      (Case F-91/15) (1)

      ((Civil Service - Member of the temporary staff - Appointment - Medical examination preceding appointment - Incomplete declarations at the medical examination - Medical reservation - Retroactive application of the medical reservation - Not eligible for the invalidity allowance - Annulment - Execution of a judgment of the General Court))
      (2016/C 364/37)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: AV (represented by: J.-N. Louis and N. de Montigny, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser, T. S. Bohr and C. Ehrbar, agents)

         Re:

      Annulment of the Commission’s decision to apply the medical reservation clause in Article 32 of the CEOS, in so far as it does not give the applicant the invalidity allowance and compensation in respect of the non-material harm allegedly suffered.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Tribunal:

                  1.

                  Annuls the decision of 16 September 2014 by which the European Commission applied the medical reservation referred to in Article 32 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union to AV;

                  2.

                  Orders the European Commission to pay AV the sum of EUR 2 000 in compensation for the non-material harm suffered by him;

                  3.

                  Dismisses the remainder of the action;

                  4.

                  Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by AV.

         (1)  OJ C 406, 7.12.2015, p. 46.


title: Case C-135/08: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 2 March 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany)) — Janko Rottmann v Freistaat Bayern (Citizenship of the Union — Article 17 EC — Nationality of one Member State acquired by birth — Nationality of another Member State acquired by naturalisation — Loss of original nationality by reason of that naturalisation — Loss with retroactive effect of nationality acquired by naturalisation on account of deception practised in that acquisition — Statelessness leading to loss of the status of citizen of the Union)

text:
               1.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/4

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 2 March 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany)) — Janko Rottmann v Freistaat Bayern
   (Case C-135/08) (1)

   (Citizenship of the Union - Article 17 EC - Nationality of one Member State acquired by birth - Nationality of another Member State acquired by naturalisation - Loss of original nationality by reason of that naturalisation - Loss with retroactive effect of nationality acquired by naturalisation on account of deception practised in that acquisition - Statelessness leading to loss of the status of citizen of the Union)
   2010/C 113/05
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesverwaltungsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Janko Rottmann

      Defendant: Freistaat Bayern

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) — Interpretation of Article 17 EC — Acquisition of the nationality of a Member State entailing the definitive loss of the nationality of the Member State of origin — Loss of the new nationality with retroactive effect as a result of deception in connection with its acquisition — Statelessness of the person concerned with the consequence of loss of citizenship of the Union

      Operative part of the judgment

   It is not contrary to European Union law, in particular to Article 17 EC, for a Member State to withdraw from a citizen of the Union the nationality of that State acquired by naturalisation when that nationality was obtained by deception, on condition that the decision to withdraw observes the principle of proportionality.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 05.07.2008.


title: Case C-433/09: Action brought on 4 November 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/25

         Action brought on 4 November 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria
   (Case C-433/09)
   2010/C 24/45
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: Republic of Austria

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by including the standard fuel consumption tax in the basis of assessment of the value added tax imposed in Austria on the delivery of a motor vehicle, the Republic of Austria did not comply with its obligations under Articles 78 and 79 of Directive 2006/112/EC (1);

               —

               order Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission complains of the inclusion of the standard fuel consumption tax (SFCT) in the basis of assessment of the value added tax imposed by the Republic of Austria on the delivery of a motor vehicle in the Republic of Austria.
   The standard fuel consumption tax essentially consists of a single registration tax, as its main feature is the registration of motor vehicles in the Republic of Austria. Consequently, the case-law of the Court of Justice in Case C-98/05 (2), according to which such a tax is not to be included in the basis of assessment of value added tax, is applicable to the present case.

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

      (2)  Case C-98/05 De Danske Bilimportører [2006] ECR I-4945.


title: Case C-606/11: Order of the President of the Court of 2 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Grattan plc v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

text:
               12.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/34

         Order of the President of the Court of 2 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Grattan plc v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs
   (Case C-606/11) (1)

   2013/C 9/58
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 65, 3.3.2012.


title: Case T-530/08: Action brought on 2 December 2008 — Diputación Foral de Guipúzcoa v Commission

text:
               7.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/47

         Action brought on 2 December 2008 — Diputación Foral de Guipúzcoa v Commission
   (Case T-530/08)
   (2009/C 32/91)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Territorio Histórico de Guipúzcoa — Diputación Foral de Guipúzcoa (represented by: I. Sáenz-Cortabarría Fernández and M. Morales Isasi, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declaration that the letter from the Directorate General of Competition of the European Commission D/53778 [COMP/H4/NM/ed D(2008) 247], of 2 October 2008, is null and void, in so far as it requires the interest referred to in Decisions 2002/894/EC and 2002/540/EC, of 11 July 2001 (infringement file 2007/2215), to be recovered on a compound basis; and

               —

               An order that the Commission should pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and main arguments are those put forward in Case T-529/08 Diputación Foral de Álava v Commission.


title: Case T-524/13: Action brought on 20 September 2013 — Euromed v OHIM — DC Druck-Chemie (EUROSIL)

text:
               30.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/21

         Action brought on 20 September 2013 — Euromed v OHIM — DC Druck-Chemie (EUROSIL)
   (Case T-524/13)
   2013/C 352/40
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Euromed, SA (Mollet del Vallès, Spain) (represented by: E. Sugrañes Coca, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: DC Druck-Chemie GmbH (Ammerbuch-Altingen, Germany)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 June 2013 given in Case R 1829/2012-1; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘EUROSIL’ for certain goods in Class 1 — Community trade mark application No 8 540 049

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: The word mark ‘EUROSIL-85’ for goods in Class 5 — Community registration No 6 140 099 and the word mark ‘EUROSIL-85’ for goods in Class 5 — Spanish registration No 2 785 209

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8 (1)(b) CTMR.


title: Case T-218/11 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 27 February 2012 — Dagher v Council (Interim measures — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted having regard to the situation in Côte d’Ivoire — Withdrawal from the list of persons concerned — Application for interim measures — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               14.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 109/12

         Order of the President of the General Court of 27 February 2012 — Dagher v Council
   (Case T-218/11 R)
   (Interim measures - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted having regard to the situation in Côte d’Ivoire - Withdrawal from the list of persons concerned - Application for interim measures - No need to adjudicate)
   2012/C 109/28
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Habib Roland Dagher (Abidjan, Côte d'Ivoire) (represented by: J.-Y. Dupeux and F. Dressen, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and E. Dumitriu-Segnana, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Firstly, application for an order that the Council and the Italian Republic issue a visa to the applicant; secondly, application for suspension of operation of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 85/2011 of 31 January 2011, implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 of 12 April 2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d'Ivoire (OJ 2005 L 28, p. 32) and Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP of 29 October 2010 renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d’Ivoire (OJ 2010 L 28, p. 60); and, thirdly, a claim for damages in compensation for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicant.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate in the application for interim measures.

               2.

               The Council of the European Union shall pay the costs.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 September 2002 in Case C-386/01: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to transpose Directive 98/7/EC)

text:
9.11.2002                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 274/15
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (First Chamber)                                                             (First Chamber)
                       of 12 September 2002                                                        of 12 September 2002
in Case C-312/01: Commission of the European Communi-                       in Case C-386/01: Commission of the European Communi-
                    ties v Hellenic Republic ( 1)                                               ties v Kingdom of Spain (1)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                      (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure
Directive 98/78/CE — Failure to transpose within the                                         to transpose Directive 98/7/EC)
                        prescribed time-limit)
                                                                                (2002/C 274/25)
                           (2002/C 274/24)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
                      (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                          in the European Court Reports)
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                            In Case C-386/01, Commission of the European Communities
In Case C-312/01, Commission of the European Communities                    (Agent: I. Martínez del Peral) v Kingdom of Spain (Agent:
(Agents: C. Tufvesson and M. Patakia) v Hellenic Republic                   S. Ortiz Vaamonde): Application for a declaration that, by
(Agent: N. Dafniou): Application for a declaration that, by                 failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative
failing to adopt or to communicate to the Commission within                 provisions necessary to comply with Directive 98/7/EC of the
the prescribed time-limit, all of the laws, regulations and                 European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive                amending Directive 87/102/EEC for the approximation of the
98/78/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of                   laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member
27 October 1998 on the supplementary supervision of                         States concerning consumer credit (OJ 1998 L 101, p. 17) or,
insurance undertakings in an insurance group (OJ 1998 L 330,                in any event, by failing to inform the Commission of the
p. 1), the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations           adoption of such provisions, the Kingdom of Spain has failed
under that directive, the Court (First Chamber), composed of:               to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1) of that directive, the
P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet                 Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur),
and A. Rosas, Judges; L. A. Geelhoed, Advocate General;                     President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet and A. Rosas, Judges;
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 September                   S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
2002, in which it:                                                          judgment on 12 September 2002, in which it:
1.    Declares that, by failing to bring into force or to communicate       1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period
      to the Commission within the prescribed time-limit, all of the              the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
      laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to                comply with Directive 98/7/EC of the European Parliament
      comply with Directive 98/78/EC of the European Parliament                   and of the Council of 16 February 1998 amending Directive
      and of the Council of 27 October 1998 on the supplementary                  87/102/EEC for the approximation of the laws, regulations
      supervision of insurance undertakings in an insurance group,                and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning
      the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under            consumer credit, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its
      that directive;                                                             obligations under Article 2(1) of that directive.
2.    Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                        2.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
( 1) OJ C 275 of 29.9.2001.                                                 (1 ) OJ C 317 of 10.11.2001.


title: Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 251, 18.10.2003

text:
1.11.2003        EN                      Official Journal of the European Union                         C 264/41
                                                            III
                                                         (Notices)
                                                     (2003/C 264/74)
                 Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union
          OJ C 251, 18.10.2003
          Past publications
          OJ C 239, 4.10.2003
          OJ C 226, 20.9.2003
          OJ C 213, 6.9.2003
          OJ C 200, 23.8.2003
          OJ C 184, 2.8.2003
          OJ C 171, 19.7.2003
                                               These texts are available on:
                                          EUR-Lex: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex
                                           CELEX: http://europa.eu.int/celex


title: Judgment of the Court of 6 June 2000 in Case C-281/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pretore di Bolzano): Roman Angonese v Cassa di Risparmio di Bolzano SpA (Freedom of movement for persons — Access to employment — Certificate of bilingualism issued by a local authority — Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39 EC) — Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68)

text:
26.8.2000                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 247/5
2.    Dismisses the remainder of the action;                               The position is not in any way changed by the fact that the taxpayer
                                                                           applying for such a tax exemption is an ordinary shareholder or an
3.    Orders the Italian Republic and the Commission of the                employee who holds shares giving rise to the payment of dividends
      European Communities to bear their own costs.                        under an employees’ savings plan.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 137 of 2.5.1998.
(1) OJ C 48 of 20.2.1999.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                               of 6 June 2000
                            of 6 June 2000                                 in Case C-281/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                           the Pretore di Bolzano): Roman Angonese v Cassa di
                                                                                Risparmio di Bolzano SpA (1)
in Case C-35/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Staatssecretaris van                       (Freedom of movement for persons — Access to employment
               Financiën v B.G.M. Verkooijen (1)                           — Certificate of bilingualism issued by a local authority —
                                                                           Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
(Free movement of capital — Direct taxation of share                         Article 39 EC) — Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68)
dividends — Exemption — Limitation to shares in companies
             whose seat is within national territory)                                                (2000/C 247/08)
                           (2000/C 247/07)                                                     (Language of the case: Italian)
                     (Language of the case: Dutch)                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     In Case C-281/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                    in the European Court Reports)                         the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Pretore di
                                                                           Bolzano, Italy, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
                                                                           pending before that court between Roman Angonese and
In Case C-35/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of               Cassa di Risparmio di Bolzano — on the interpretation of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Hoge Raad der                  Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39
Nederlanden for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                    EC) and Articles 3(1) and 7(1) and (4) of Regulation (EEC)
pending before that court between Staatssecretaris van Financi-            No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom
ën and B.G.M. Verkooijen — on the interpretation of Council                of movement for workers within the Community (Official
Directive 88/361/EEC of 24 June 1988 for the implementation                Journal, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475) — the Court,
of Article 67 of the Treaty (OJ 1988 L 178, p. 5) and of                   composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, D.A.O. Ed-
Articles 6 and 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,                  ward, L. Sevón and R. Schintgen, Presidents of Chambers,
Articles 12 EC and 43 EC) — the Court, composed of:                        P.J.G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann,
G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida,             H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur) and M. Wathelet, Judges; N. Fen-
L. Sevón and R. Schintgen, Presidents of Chambers, P.J.G. Kap-            nelly, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the
teyn, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm,                 Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 June 2000, in which it
M. Wathelet (Rapporteur) and F. Macken, Judges; A. La Pergola,             has ruled:
Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Adminis-
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 June 2000,            Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39 EC)
in which it has ruled:                                                     precludes an employer from requiring persons applying to take part
                                                                           in a recruitment competition to provide evidence of their linguistic
Article 1(1) of Council Directive 88/361/EEC of 24 June 1988 for           knowledge exclusively by means of one particular diploma issued only
the implementation of Article 67 of the Treaty precludes a legislative     in one particular province of a Member State.
provision of a Member State which, like the one at issue in the main
proceedings, makes the grant of an exemption from the income tax           (1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.
payable on dividends paid to natural persons who are shareholders
subject to the condition that those dividends are paid by a company
whose seat is in that Member State.


title: Case C-370/99: Action brought on 4 October 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland

text:
C 352/28                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       4.12.1999
Is Article 11(1) of Italian Law No 448 of 23 December 1998                 Action brought on 4 October 1999 by the Commission
(G.U.R.I. No 302 of 29 December 1998, ordinary supplement)                         of the European Communities against Ireland
compatible with Community law, in particular with Articles 10
and 12 of Council Directive 69/335/EEC (1) of 17 July 1969
concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, inasmuch                                       (Case C-370/99)
as it provides that the administrative charge is payable at a flat
annual rate for registration of ‘other company documents’ for                                       (1999/C 352/46)
each of the years from 1985 to 1992, equal to the sum of
the sum of ITL 750 000 for public limited companies and
partnerships limited by shares and ITL 400 000 for private                 An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
limited companies?                                                         Justice of the European Communities on 4 October 1999 by
                                                                           the Commission of the European Communities, represented
                                                                           by Karen Banks, Legal Adviser, and by Manuel Desantes, a
Is Article 11(3) of Law No 448/98 compatible with Com-                     national expert seconded to its Legal Service, with an address
munity law, inasmuch as it provides that interest on the sums              for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
to be reimbursed in so far as they exceed the sum provided for             Cruz, also of its Legal Service, Centre Wagner, Kirchberg,
by Article 11(1) should be calculated according to the legal               Luxembourg.
rate in force at the date on which that Law entered into force
(2,5 % per annum) and not according to the rate provided for
by Article 5 with respect to Article 1 of Law No 29 of                     The Applicant claims that the Court should:
26 January 1961, as subsequently amended?
                                                                           — find that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations or
                                                                               administrative provisions necessary to comply with Euro-
(1) OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (11), p. 412.                             pean Parliament and Council Directive 96/9/EC of
                                                                               11 March 1996 concerning the legal protection of databas-
                                                                               es (1), Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
                                                                               said Directive, and
                                                                           — order Ireland to bear the costs of this procedure.
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgericht
Korneuburg (Austria) by order of that court of 21 Sep-
tember 1999 in the case of Hugo BOSS Aktiengesellschaft                    Article 249 EC (ex Article 189 of the EC Treaty) under which
                           v Coalle FA-93                                  a directive shall be binding, as to the result to be achieved,
                                                                           upon each Member State, carries by implication an obligation
                                                                           on the Member States to observe the period for compliance
                          (Case C-367/99)                                  laid down in the directive. That period expired on 1 January
                                                                           1998 without Ireland having enacted the provisions necessary
                          (1999/C 352/45)                                  to comply with the directive referred to in the conclusions of
                                                                           the Commission.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Landesgericht                         (1) OJ L 77 of 27.3.1996, p. 20.
(Regional Court) Korneuburg (Austria) of 21 September 1999,
received at the Court Registry on 4 October 1999, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Hugo BOSS Aktiengesellschaft
v Coalle FA-93 on the following question:
On a proper construction of Article 1 thereof, is Council
Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 of 22 December 1994 laying
down measures to prohibit the release for free circulation,
export, re-export or entry for a suspensive procedure of                   Action brought on 6 October 1999 by the Commission
counterfeit and pirated goods (Official Journal of the European            of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
Communities L 341 of 30 December 1994) also applicable to
situations in which goods of the type specified therein are, in                                     (Case C-372/99)
the course of transit between two countries not belonging to
the European Community, temporarily detained by the cus-
toms authorities in a Member State on the basis of that                                             (1999/C 352/47)
regulation, at the request of a holder of rights who claims that
his rights have been infringed and whose undertaking has                   An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
its registered office in a Member State of the European                    Court of Justice of the European Communities on 6 October
Community?                                                                 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                           represented by Paolo Stancanelli, of its Legal Service, acting as
                                                                           Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office
                                                                           of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.


title: Case C-111/00: Action brought on 23 March 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria

text:
10.6.2000                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 163/11
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                The Commission claims that the Court should:
1. Declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed                 a) declare that, by not adopting and/or notifying to the
     period all the provisions necessary to comply with Council                  Commission the laws, regulations and administrative pro-
     Directive 97/41/EC of 25 June 1997 amending Direc-                          visions necessary to comply with Commission Directive
     tives 76/895/EEC, 86/362/EEC, 86/363/EEC and                                97/59/EC (1) of 7 October 1997 adapting to technical
     90/642/EEC (1), the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil                progress Council Directive 90/679/EEC (2) on the protec-
     its obligations under the Treaty; and                                       tion of workers from risks related to exposure to biological
                                                                                agents at work (seventh individual Directive within the
                                                                                meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (3), the
2. Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.                               Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                                Article 2(1) of that directive;
                                                                           b) order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those                 Pleas in law and main arguments
in Case C-105/00 (2); the time-limit for transposition expired
on 31 December 1998.
                                                                           The pleas in law and main arguments correspond to those put
                                                                           forward in Case C-105/00 (4); according to the Commission
                                                                           the time-limit for transposition expired on 31 March 1998
(1) Council Directive 97/41/EC of 25 June 1997 amending Directives
                                                                           without Austria having adopted the necessary measures in full
    76/895/EEC, 86/362/EEC, 86/363/EEC and 90/642/EEC relating             for all sectors and at all State levels, in particular at Land level.
    to the fixing of maximum levels for pesticide residues in and on,
    respectively, fruit and vegetables, cereals, foodstuffs of animal
    origin, and certain products of plant origin, including fruit and
    vegetables (OJ 1997 L 184, p. 33).                                     ( 1) OJ L 282, 15.10.1997, p. 33.
(2) See p. 10 of this Official Journal.                                    ( 2) OJ L 374, 31.12.1990, p. 1.
                                                                           ( 3) OJ L 183, 29.6.1989, p. 1.
                                                                           ( 4) Commission v Portugal, notice not yet published in the Official
                                                                                Journal.
Action brought on 23 March 2000 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Republic of                        Action brought on 23 March 2000 by the Commission
                                 Austria                                   of the European Communities against the Republic of
                                                                                Austria
                           (Case C-110/00)
                                                                                (Case C-111/00)
                           (2000/C 163/18)                                                           (2000/C 163/19)
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before               An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 23 March               the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 23 March
2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,                        2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Nicola Yerrell, of its Legal Service, and Clemens           represented by Nicola Yerrell, of its Legal Service, and Clemens
Ladenburger, on secondment to its Legal Service under an                   Ladenburger, on secondment to its Legal Service under an
exchange with national civil servants, with an address for                 exchange with national civil servants, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la                 service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
Cruz, of its Legal Service, C 254, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.               Cruz, of its Legal Service, C 254, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
 ---pagebreak--- C 163/12                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      10.6.2000
The Commission claims that the Court should:                                 notice has been given, may not be authorised, if it can also
                                                                             be held at a place away from the transit route with a
a) declare that, by not adopting and/or notifying to the                     comparable effect on public awareness, or by requiring it
      Commission the laws, regulations and administrative pro-               at least to be dispersed once this becomes possible?
      visions necessary to comply with Commission Directive
      97/65/EC (1) of 26 November 1997 adapting, for the third
      time, to technical progress Council Directive
      90/679/EEC (2) on the protection of workers from risks              2. Where, on account of the failure by a Member State to
      related to exposure to biological agents at work (seventh              indicate in its national provisions on freedom of assembly
      individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of            and the right to exercise it that, in the weighing of freedom
      Directive 89/391/EEC) (3), the Republic of Austria has                 of assembly against the public interest, the principles of
      failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1) of that            Community law, primarily the fundamental freedoms and,
      directive;                                                             in this particular case, the provisions on the free movement
                                                                             of goods, are also to be observed, a political demonstration
b) order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.                           of 28 hours’ duration is authorised and held which,
                                                                             in conjunction with a pre-existing national generally
                                                                             applicable ban on holiday driving, causes an essential intra-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              Community goods transit route to be closed, inter alia, to
                                                                             the majority of heavy goods traffic for four days, with a
                                                                             short interruption of a few hours, does that failure
The pleas in law and main arguments correspond to those put                  constitute a sufficiently serious infringement of Com-
forward in Case C-105/00 (4); according to the Commission                    munity law in order to establish liability on the part of the
the time-limit for transposition expired on 30 June 1998                     Member State under the principles of Community law,
without Austria having adopted the necessary measures in full                provided that the other requirements for such liability are
for all sectors and at all State levels, in particular at Land level.        met?
( 1) OJ L 335, 6.12.1997, p. 17.
( 2) OJ L 374, 31.12.1990, p. 1.
( 3) OJ L 183, 29.6.1989, p. 1.                                           3. Where a national authority decides that there is nothing in
( 4) Commission v Portugal, notice not yet published in the Official         the provisions of Community law, in particular those
     Journal.                                                                concerning the free movement of goods and the general
                                                                             duty of cooperation and solidarity under Article 5 of the
                                                                             EC Treaty (now Article 10 EC), to preclude, and thus no
                                                                             ground on which to ban, a political demonstration of
                                                                             28 hours’ duration which, in conjunction with a pre-
                                                                             existing national generally applicable ban on holiday
                                                                             driving, causes an essential intra-Community goods transit
                                                                             route to be closed, inter alia, to the majority of heavy
                                                                             goods traffic for four days, with a short interruption of a
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Beschlusses des                    few hours, does that decision constitute a sufficiently
Oberlandesgerichts Innsbruck by order of 1 February                          serious infringement of Community law in order to
2000 in the case of Eugen Schmidberger v Republic of                         establish liability on the part of the Member State liable
                               Austria                                       under the principles of Community law, provided that the
                                                                             other requirements for such liability are met?
                           (Case C-112/00)
                           (2000/C 163/20)
                                                                          4. Is the objective of an officially authorised political demon-
                                                                             stration, namely that of working for a healthy environment
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       and of drawing attention to the danger to public health
European Communities by order of 1 February 2000 by the                      caused by the constant increase in the transit traffic of
Oberlandesgericht (Higher Regional Court), Innsbruck, which                  heavy-goods vehicles to be deemed to be of a higher order
was received at the Court Registry on 24 March 2000, for a                   than the provisions of Community law on the free
preliminary ruling in the case of Eugen Schmidberger v                       movement of goods under Article 28 EC?
Republic of Austria on the following questions:
1. Are the principles of the free movement of goods under
      Article 30 et seq. of the EC Treaty (now Article 28 et              5. Is there already loss giving rise to a claim founded on State
      seq. EC), or other provisions of Community law, to be                  liability where the person incurring the loss can prove that
      interpreted as meaning that a Member State is obliged,                 he was in a position to earn income, in the present case
      either absolutely or at least as far as reasonably possible,           from the international transport of goods by means of the
      to keep major transit routes clear of all restrictions and             heavy-goods vehicles operated by him but rendered idle by
      impediments, inter alia, by requiring that a political                 the 28 hour demonstration, yet is unable to prove the loss
      demonstration to be held on a transit route, of which                  of a specific transport journey?


title: Case T-434/14: Action brought on 16 June 2014  — Arbuzov v Council

text:
               25.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/42

         Action brought on 16 June 2014 — Arbuzov v Council
   (Case T-434/14)
   2014/C 282/56
   Language of the case: Czech

      Parties

      Applicant: Sergej Arbuzov (Kyiv, Ukraine) (represented by: M. Machytková and P. Radošovský, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 66, p. 26) and Council Implementing Decision 2014/216/CFSP of 14 April 2014 implementing Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 111, p. 91) in so far as they apply to the applicant; and

               —

               order the Council to bear its own costs and to pay the applicant’s costs in full.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of the presumption of innocence, the right to a fair trial and the rights of the defence

                           —

                           The applicant claims in support of the action, inter alia, that he was included on the list in the Annex to Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP by Council Implementing Decision 2014/216/CFSP before the investigation into his alleged criminal activity in Ukraine was opened.

                           —

                           The applicant goes on to state that there was an infringement of the right to a fair trial because there was a breach of the legal principle of the presumption of innocence. Further, the applicant submits that the Council did not inform the applicant of his inclusion on the list and of the grounds for the restrictive measures taken against the applicant, nor did it permit the applicant to become acquainted with those facts within a reasonable time after the introduction of those measures. The applicant submits that he could not comment effectively on the contested decision or exercise his right of defence in the time immediately after its adoption.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Council exceeded its powers

                           —

                           The applicant objects to formal defects in the Council’s contested measure. In the applicant’s opinion, the reason formulated in terms of the criminal law in the part of the measures containing the statement of reasons is entirely inadequate and evidently does not include genuine policy reasons, or reasons concerning the alleged infringement of human rights, which are stated only in general terms in the preamble. The applicant further submits that the Council exceeded its power because the officially communicated reasons for the measures do not fall within the framework within which the Council is entitled to adopt measures.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to property

                           —

                           The applicant claims in that regard that the sanction is disproportionate and amounts to an infringement of guarantees under international law of protection of the right to property.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to the integrity of the person and to respect for private and family life, and breach of the principle of non-discrimination

                           —

                           Here the applicant claims that the measure adopted is an act that is detrimental to the right to the integrity of the person, affecting the applicant’s family and private sphere.

                           —

                           According to the applicant, he has suffered damage to his good reputation and a loss of dignity owing to the fact that he was de facto accused by the Council, in the contested decision and in the implementing decision, of transferring Ukrainian State funds abroad and of human rights infringements, although not one of these offences has ever been proved against the applicant and, at the time when he was included on the list, the applicant was not even under investigation for the commission of such offences.

                           —

                           In addition the applicant claims that the Council’s measure is discriminatory because he was included on the list without any real reason, and, vice versa, the list does not include persons who should be included on it because of their activities against the interests of Ukraine.


title: Case T-615/14: Action brought on 14 August 2014  — Fútbol Club Barcelona v OHIM (Representation of a crest)

text:
               20.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 372/22

         Action brought on 14 August 2014 — Fútbol Club Barcelona v OHIM (Representation of a crest)
   (Case T-615/14)
   2014/C 372/28
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Fútbol Club Barcelona (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by J. Carbonell Callicó, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               alter the decisions of the First Board of Appeal of 23 May 2014 and of the Examiner of 23 May 2013, in accordance with Article 65(3) of Regulation No 207/2009, for infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009, acknowledging the distinctive character of the figurative mark applied for in application No 1 1 7 64  354 and, therefore, the inapplicability of the absolute ground for refusal of registration laid down in Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, and ordering the publication of that trade mark application so that, once the remaining procedures have been dealt with, the application may be granted;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs, in accordance with Article 87(2) of Regulation No 207/2009.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark representing a crest for goods and services in classes 16, 25 and 41 — Community trade mark application No 1 1 7 64  354.

      Decision of the Examiner: Application rejected.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

      Pleas in law:

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009.