C 213/44                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                       6.9.2003
        Removal from the register of Case T-35/02 (1)                               Removal from the register of Case T-62/03 ( 1)
                         (2003/C 213/88)                                                             (2003/C 213/90)
                    (Language of the Case: Italian)                                             (Language of the Case: French)
By order of 8 April 2003 the President of the Third Chamber
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                  By order of 19 June 2003 the President of the Fourth Chamber
ordered the removal from the register of Case T-35/02: Alitalia             of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
— Linee Aeree Italiane SpA v Commission of the European                     ordered the removal from the register of Case T-62/03: Georges
Communities.                                                                Vassilakis v Commission of the European Communities.
( 1) OJ C 109 of 4.05.2002.                                                 (1 ) OJ C 101 of 26.04.2003.
        Removal from the register of Case T-103/02 (1)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-85/03 ( 1)
                         (2003/C 213/89)
                                                                                (2003/C 213/91)
                   (Language of the Case: English)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: English)
By order of 19 June 2003 the President of the Fifth Chamber
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                            By order of 18 June 2003 the President of the Fourth Chamber
ordered the removal from the register of Case T-103/02: Ineos
                                                                            of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
Phenol GmbH & Co. KG v Commission of the European
                                                                            ordered the removal from the register of Case T-85/03:
Communities.
                                                                            Government of the Cayman Islands v Commission of the
                                                                            European Communities.
( 1) OJ C 156 of 29.06.2002.
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 124 of 24.05.2003.


title: Case T-85/08: Action brought on 19 February 2008 — Exalation v OHIM (Vektor-Lycopin)

text:
               26.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/36

         Action brought on 19 February 2008 — Exalation v OHIM (Vektor-Lycopin)
   (Case T-85/08)
   (2008/C 107/61)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Exalation Ltd (Ilford, United Kingdom) (represented by K. Zingsheim, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 December 2007 in Case R 1037/2007-4 and OHIM's decision of 4 May 2007 and order OHIM to register the mark ‘Vektor-Lycopin’ applied for by the applicant as a Community trade mark in the Community Trade Mark Register;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘Vektor-Lycopin’ for goods in Classes 5, 29 and 30 (Application No 4 838 983)

      Decision of the Examiner: Partial rejection of the application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), as the mark applied for has sufficient distinctive character and is not descriptive.

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


title: Case C-193/16: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia del País Vasco — Spain) — E v Subdelegación del Gobierno en Álava (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Citizenship of the Union — Right to move and reside freely in the territory of the Member States — Directive 2004/38/EC — The second subparagraph of Article 27(2) — Restrictions on the right of entry and the right of residence on grounds of public policy, public security or public health — Expulsion from the territory for reasons of public policy or public security — Conduct representing a sufficiently serious present and genuine threat for a fundamental interest of society — Present and genuine threat — Concept — Union citizen residing in the host Member State where he is serving a prison sentence for repeated child sexual abuse offences)

text:
               4.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 293/9

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia del País Vasco — Spain) — E v Subdelegación del Gobierno en Álava
   (Case C-193/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Citizenship of the Union - Right to move and reside freely in the territory of the Member States - Directive 2004/38/EC - The second subparagraph of Article 27(2) - Restrictions on the right of entry and the right of residence on grounds of public policy, public security or public health - Expulsion from the territory for reasons of public policy or public security - Conduct representing a sufficiently serious present and genuine threat for a fundamental interest of society - Present and genuine threat - Concept - Union citizen residing in the host Member State where he is serving a prison sentence for repeated child sexual abuse offences))
   (2017/C 293/11)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Superior de Justicia del País Vasco

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: E

      Defendant: Subdelegación del Gobierno en Álava

      Operative part of the judgment

   The second subparagraph of Article 27(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC, must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that a person is imprisoned at the time the expulsion decision was adopted, without the prospect of being released in the near future, does not exclude that his conduct represents, as the case may be, a present and genuine threat for a fundamental interest of the society of the host Member State.

      (1)  OJ C 251, 11.7.2016.


title: Case T-482/08: Judgment of the General Court of 10 June 2010 — Atlas Transport v OHIM — Hartmann (ATLAS TRANSPORT) (Community trade mark — Revocation proceedings — Community word mark ATLAS TRANSPORT — Genuine use of the trade mark — Articles 15 and 50(1) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Articles 15 and 51(1) of Regulation No 207/2009))

text:
               31.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/35

         Judgment of the General Court of 10 June 2010 — Atlas Transport v OHIM — Hartmann (ATLAS TRANSPORT)
   (Case T-482/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Revocation proceedings - Community word mark ATLAS TRANSPORT - Genuine use of the trade mark - Articles 15 and 50(1) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Articles 15 and 51(1) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   2010/C 209/51
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Atlas Transport GmbH (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: U. Hildebrandt, K. Schmidt-Hern and B. Weichhaus, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Alfred Hartmann (Leer, Germany) (represented by C. Drews, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 September 2008 (Case R 1858/2007-4) relating to revocation proceedings between Alfred Hartmann and Atlas Transport GmbH.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 9 September 2008 in Case R 1858/2007-4;

               2.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs as well as those incurred by Atlas Transport GmbH;

               3.

               Orders Alfred Hartmann to bear his own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 32, 7.2.2009.


title: Case T-101/11: Action brought on 23 February 2011 — Mizuno v OHIM — Golfino (G)

text:
               16.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 120/16

         Action brought on 23 February 2011 — Mizuno v OHIM — Golfino (G)
   (Case T-101/11)
   2011/C 120/37
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Mizuno Corp. (Osaka, Japan) (represented by: T. Raab and H. Lauf, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Golfino AG (Glinde, Germany)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 December 2010 in Case R 821/2010-1 in its entirety;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark containing the letter ‘G’ together with other symbols, for goods in Class 25

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Golfino AG

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the figurative mark containing the letter ‘G’ together with a plus sign, for goods and services in Classes 18, 25 and 35

      Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was rejected

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was granted and the application was rejected

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and indirectly of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1) as there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).


title: Case T-4/13: Action brought on 9 January 2013 — Communicaid Group v Commission

text:
               9.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/24

         Action brought on 9 January 2013 — Communicaid Group v Commission
   (Case T-4/13)
   2013/C 71/37
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Communicaid Group Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Brennan, Solicitor, F. Randolph, QC, and M. Gray, Barrister)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul each of the decisions of the European Commission of 30 October 2012 concerning lots 1, 2, 3, 7, 8 and 9 in response to Call for Tenders HR/R.3/PR/2012/002 for (Multiple) framework Contracts for provision of language training for staff of the Institutions, Bodies and Agencies of the European Union in Brussels (OJ 2012, S 45 72734), either, in part, in so far as they put CLL-Allingua in first place, or in their entirety; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the principles of transparency, non-discrimination and equal treatment, and breached Article 94 of the Financial Regulation (1) by not excluding CLL-Allingua from the tender in circumstances where CLL-Allingua’s tender was assisted with by one of its employee who had worked in the relevant Commission Unit and on an evaluation committee for a closely comparable tender procedure in which both Communicaid and CLL-Allingua had participated, as well as during the preparatory stages of the tender, thus breaching his duty of loyalty to the EU and giving CLL-Allingua an unfair advantage over Communicaid.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging the Commission infringed the principles of transparency, non-discrimination and equal treatment and erred in its interpretation of Article III.2.2) of the Contract Notice (OJ 2012, S 45 72734), by determining that CLL-Allingua had the economic and financial capacity to service the tender, in circumstances where there was insufficient evidence to support such a conclusion, and CLL-Allingua ought, lawfully, to have failed to meet that precondition.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that there were a number of manifest errors of assessment under each of the four criteria, namely that the Evaluation Committee repeatedly assessed the tenders by reference to award sub-criteria that were not announced in advance, gave inconsistent markings resulting in Communicaid being awarded a lower score and CLL-Allingua a higher score across all lots for the technical evaluations, and failed to provided cogent reasons for its assessments.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1)


               11.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/44

         Removal from the Register of Case T-225/01 (1)

   (2005/C 143/81)

      (Language of the case: Spanish)

   By order of 15 March 2005, the President of the Fifth Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-225/01, Gobierno Foral de Navarra v Commission of the European Communities.

      (1)  OJ C 331 of 24.11.2001.


title: Case C-500/08: Action brought on 19 November 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

text:
               10.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/16

         Action brought on 19 November 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-500/08)
   (2009/C 6/27)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F. Erlbacher and E. Vesco, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2005/94/EC of 20 December 2005 on Community measures for the control of avian influenza and repealing Directive 92/40/EEC (1), the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

               —

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposing Directive 2005/94/EC into national law expired on 1 July 2007.

      (1)  OJ 2005 L 10, p. 16.


title: Case C-18/04 P: Appeal brought on 16 January 2004 by Mr G. Krikorian, Mrs S. Krikorian (née Tatoyan) and the Euro-Armenia Association against the order made on 17 December 2003 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-346/03 G. Krikorian and Others v Parliament, Council and Commission and against the order made on 17 December 2003 by the President of the Court of First Instance in Case T-346/03 R G. Krikorian and Others v Parliament, Council and Commission between G. Krikorian and Others and the Parliament, the Council and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/18

         Appeal brought on 16 January 2004 by Mr G. Krikorian, Mrs S. Krikorian (née Tatoyan) and the Euro-Armenia Association against the order made on 17 December 2003 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-346/03 G. Krikorian and Others v Parliament, Council and Commission and against the order made on 17 December 2003 by the President of the Court of First Instance in Case T-346/03 R G. Krikorian and Others v Parliament, Council and Commission between G. Krikorian and Others and the Parliament, the Council and the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-18/04 P)
   (2004/C 94/37)
   An appeal against the order made on 17 December 2003 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance in Case T-346/03 (G. Krikorian and Others v Parliament, Council and Commission) and against the order made on 17 December 2003 by the President of the Court of First Instance in case T-346/03 R (G. Krikorian and Others v Parliament, Council and Commission) between G. Krikorian and Others and the Parliament, the Council and the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 16 January 2004 by Mr G. Krikorian, Mrs S. Krikorian (née Tatoyan) and the Euro-Armenia Association.
   The appellants claim that the Court should:

               1.

               set aside in its entirety the order made on 17 December 2003 and notified by registered letter received on 6 January 2004, by which the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber), in Case T-346/03 G. Krikorian and Others v Parliament, Council and Commission, dismissed, pursuant to Article 111 of its Rules of Procedure, the appellants' action for damages on the ground that it was manifestly lacking any foundation in law;

               2.

               set aside in its entirety the order made on 17 December 2003 and notified by registered letter received on 6 January 2004, by which the President of the Court of First Instance, in Case T-346/03 G. Krikorian and Others v Parliament, Council and Commission, held that as a consequence there was no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for interim measures;

               3.

               allow all the forms of order claimed at first instance and, as a consequence:

                           (a)

                           declare that the Resolution of 18 June 1987 by which the European Parliament acknowledged the historic reality of the Armenian genocide – perpetrated by the ‘Young Turk’ Government in 1915 against 1 500 000 innocent Armenian victims – and considered modern Turkey's failure to acknowledge it an insurmountable obstacle to consideration of Turkey's accession to the European Union, an act giving rise to legitimate expectations on the part of European citizens of Armenian origin and thus on the part of the appellants, has binding legal force with regard to the European Community;

                           (b)

                           hold that by their complete failure to draw political and legal consequences from the abovementioned resolution, the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities have committed a sufficiently serious infringement of Community law, which is to the detriment of the appellants;

                           (c)

                           order the three abovementioned Community institutions jointly and severally liable to pay each of the appellants the sum of EUR 1 (one euro) by way of damages in respect of the non-pecuniary damage caused to them by that infringement of Community law, attributable to the Community institutions;

         In the alternative,
   Having set aside the two contested orders in their entirety:

               4.

               refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for adjudication;

               5.

               hold that the Court of First Instance will be bound as regards any points of law decided by the Court of Justice and, in particular, as regards the binding legal force, for the defendant institutions, of the European Parliament's resolution of 18 June 1987, which gave rise to a legitimate expectation on the part of the appellants that the Community institutions would adhere to the terms of that resolution;

         In any event,

               6.

               order the Community institutions jointly and severally to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

               —

               Procedural irregularities which have prejudiced the appellants' interests:

                           1.

                           in dismissing the appellants' action for damages, the Court of First Instance infringed Article 111 of its Rules of Procedure;

                           2.

                           in ordering the appellants to pay the costs, the Court of First Instance infringed Article 87(3) of its Rules of Procedure, and its order is also vitiated by inadequate reasoning;

                           3.

                           consideration of the contested order further shows an infringement of Articles 6(1) and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 1 of the First Protocol thereto, as well as a breach of the principle of effective judicial protection;

               —

               Infringement of Community law: in making the contested order, the Court of First Instance infringed the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations, of legal certainty and of acquired rights.


title: Case F-99/06: Action brought on 25 August 2006 — Lopez Teruel v OHIM

text:
               14.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/18

         Action brought on 25 August 2006 — Lopez Teruel v OHIM
   (Case F-99/06)
   (2006/C 249/39)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Adelaida Lopez Teruel (El Casar, Spain) (represented by: G. Vandersanden, L. Levi and C. Ronzi, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
   Form of order sought
   The Court is asked to:

               —

               annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of 20 October 2005 taken in response to the opinion of the independent doctor referred to in Article 59(1) of the Staff Regulations;

               —

               so far as necessary, annul the Appointing Authority's decision of 17 May 2006 rejecting the complaint brought by the applicant on 20 January 2006;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, an OHIM official, submitted medical certificates justifying her absence from work from 7 April to 7 August 2005. The validity of those certificates was disputed by OHIM, which required the applicant to undergo medical examinations. On the basis of those examinations, OHIM ordered the applicant to return to her post from 2 August 2005. The procedure for an independent medical opinion, set in motion at the applicant's request in accordance with Article 59(1) of the Staff Regulations, confirmed the fact that the applicant's absence was irregular.
   In support of her application, the applicant puts forward three pleas, the first of which alleges infringement of the fifth and the sixth paragraphs of the abovementioned provision. So far as the fifth paragraph is concerned, the applicant criticises the calculation of the days of absence which OHIM treated as being irregular following the medical examinations. So far as the sixth paragraph is concerned, the applicant submits, first, that AIPN acted improperly in its selection of the independent doctor, although there was no disagreement between the institution's medical officer and the applicant's doctor as regards the selection of the third doctor. Second, the period of five days referred to in the paragraph in question ran only from the time when the institution's medical officer contacted the official's doctor. In the alternative, she submits that this time-limit is not mandatory.
   In her second plea, the applicant alleges that the statement of reasons in the independent doctor's opinion was erroneous and that it was not properly drawn up, in so far as the conclusions of that opinion are not consistent with the medical findings contained therein.
   In her third plea, the applicant alleges infringement of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials, the principle of good administration, the principle of openness and the rights of the defence.


title: Case T-169/13: Action brought on 21 March 2013 — Benelli Q.J./OHIM — Demharter (MOTO B)

text:
               25.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 147/27

         Action brought on 21 March 2013 — Benelli Q.J./OHIM — Demharter (MOTO B)
   (Case T-169/13)
   2013/C 147/48
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Benelli Q.J. Srl (Pesaro, Italy) (represented by: P. Lukácsi, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Demharter GmbH (Dillingen, Germany)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the defendant’s decision and remit the case to OHIM for further examination and a new decision due to the fact that the prior marks of the applicant shall be considered earlier trade marks within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) Council Regulation No 207/2009 and therefore the applicant’s opposition based on likelihood of confusion shall be assessed as to its substance;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.

      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 figurative mark ‘MOTO B’ claiming the colours black, white, red, gold, green, brown and grey for goods in classes 9, 12 and 25 — Community trade mark application No 8 780 926

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Well-known, Italian, non-registered figurative marks «MOTOBI» et al.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-95/04 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 March 2007 — British Airways plc v Commission of the European Communities, Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd (Appeals — Abuse of dominant position — Airline — Agreements with travel agents — Bonuses linked to growth in sales of that airline's tickets over a given period in comparison with a reference period — Bonuses granted not only for tickets sold once the sales target achieved, but for all tickets sold during the period in question)

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/2

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 March 2007 — British Airways plc v Commission of the European Communities, Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd
   (Case C-95/04 P) (1)

   (Appeals - Abuse of dominant position - Airline - Agreements with travel agents - Bonuses linked to growth in sales of that airline's tickets over a given period in comparison with a reference period - Bonuses granted not only for tickets sold once the sales target achieved, but for all tickets sold during the period in question)
   (2007/C 95/02)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Appellant: British Airways plc (represented by: R. Subiotto, solicitor, R. O'Donoghue, barrister, W. Wood QC)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Oliver, A. Nijenhuis and M. Wilderspin, Agents), Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd (represented by: J. Scott, solicitor, C. West, barrister, N. Green QC)
   Re:
   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 17 December 2003 in Case T-219/99 British Airways v Commission dismissing as unfounded an application for annulment of the decision of the Commission of 14 July 1999 relating to a proceeding under Article 82 [EC] (IV/D-2/34.780 — Virgin/British Airways) concerning agreements concluded between British Airways and travel agencies establishing commission schemes and other benefits linked to the increase in volume of ticket sales of that airline
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               British Airways plc is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 106, 30.4.2004.


title: Case C-405/12 P: Appeal brought on 27 August 2012 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 14 June 2012 in Case T-338/08 Stichting Natuur en Milieu, Pesticide Action Network Europe v Commission

text:
               12.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/28

         Appeal brought on 27 August 2012 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 14 June 2012 in Case T-338/08 Stichting Natuur en Milieu, Pesticide Action Network Europe v Commission
   (Case C-405/12 P)
   2013/C 9/46
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

   Appellant: European Commission (represented by: P. Oliver, J.-P. Keppenne, G. Valero Jordana, P. van Nuffel, Agents)
   Other parties to the proceedings:

               Stichting Natuur en Milieu,

               Pesticide Action Network Europe,

               Republic of Poland,

               Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 14 June 2012 in Case T-338/08;

               —

               rule on the substance of the case and dismiss the actions for annulment of the Commission’s decisions of 1 July 2008; and

               —

               order the applicants to pay the costs incurred by the Commission in Case T-338/08 and in this appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant’s first plea coincides with the first plea in Case C-403/12 P.
   By its second plea, the Commission submits, in the alternative, that the General Court misinterpreted the scope of Article 9(3) of the Aarhus Convention (1) in the light of the second subparagraph of Article 2(2) of that convention, by concluding that the Commission did not act ‘in a legislative capacity’ within the meaning of the latter provision in adopting Regulation (EC) No 149/2008. (2)

      (1)  Aarhus Convention of 25 June 1998 on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, approved by Council Decision 2005/370/EC of 17 February 2005 (OJ 2005 L 124, p. 1).

      (2)  Commission Regulation of 29 January 2008 amending Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council by establishing Annexes II, III and IV setting maximum residue levels for products covered by Annex I thereto (OJ 2008 L 58, p. 1).


title: Case T-276/13: Judgment of the General Court of 9 June 2016 — Growth Energy and Renewable Fuels Association v Council (Dumping — Imports of bioethanol originating in the United States — Definitive anti-dumping duty — Action for annulment — Association — Members not directly concerned — Inadmissibility — Countrywide anti-dumping duty — Individual treatment — Sampling — Rights of the defence — Non-discrimination — Duty of diligence)

text:
               25.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/38

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 June 2016 — Growth Energy and Renewable Fuels Association v Council
   (Case T-276/13) (1)

   ((Dumping - Imports of bioethanol originating in the United States - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Action for annulment - Association - Members not directly concerned - Inadmissibility - Countrywide anti-dumping duty - Individual treatment - Sampling - Rights of the defence - Non-discrimination - Duty of diligence))
   (2016/C 270/41)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Growth Energy (Washington, DC, United States), and Renewable Fuels Association (Washington) (represented initially by P. Vander Schueren, and subsequently by P. Vander Schueren and M. Peristeraki, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Boelaert, acting as Agent, and by B. Byrne, Solicitor, and G. Berrisch, lawyer, and subsequently by R. Bierwagen and C. Hipp, lawyers)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. França and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents); and ePURE, de Europese Producenten Unie van Hernieuwbare Ethanol (represented by: O. Prost and A. Massot, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for partial annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 157/2013 of 18 February 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of bioethanol originating in the United States of America (OJ 2013 L 49, p. 10), in so far as it affects the applicants and their members.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 157/2013 of 18 February 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of bioethanol originating in the United States of America in so far as it concerns Patriot Renewable Fuels LLC, Plymouth Energy Company LLC, POET LLC and Platinum Ethanol LLC;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders Growth Energy and Renewable Fuels Association, the Council of the European Union, the European Commission and ePure, de Europese Producenten Unie van Hernieuwbare Ethanol to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 226, 3.8.2013.


title: Case F-9/06: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 19 April 2007 — Canteiro Lopez v Commission (Promotion — No definitive staff report — Comparative examination of the merits)

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/39

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 19 April 2007 — Canteiro Lopez v Commission
   (Case F-9/06) (1)

   (Promotion - No definitive staff report - Comparative examination of the merits)
   (2007/C 96/81)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Rui Canteiro Lopez (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Berscheid and M. Velardo, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of the Commission decision of 4 March 2005 not to add the applicant's name to the list of officials judged to be the most deserving and not to promote him to Grade A4 in the 2000 promotion exercise.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 74, 25.3.2006, p. 35.


title: Case C-488/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Тargоvishtki оkrazhеn sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 9 September 2013 — Parva Investitsionna Banka AD, UniKredit Bulbank AD, Siyk Faundeyshan LLS v Ear Proparti Developmant — v nesastoyatelnost АD, Insolvency administrator of Ear Proparti Developmant — v nesastoyatelnost АD

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/47

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Тargоvishtki оkrazhеn sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 9 September 2013 — Parva Investitsionna Banka AD, UniKredit Bulbank AD, Siyk Faundeyshan LLS v Ear Proparti Developmant — v nesastoyatelnost АD, Insolvency administrator of Ear Proparti Developmant — v nesastoyatelnost АD
   (Case C-488/13)
   2013/C 344/81
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Тargоvishtki оkrazhеn sad

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Parva Investitsionna Banka AD, UniKredit Bulbank AD, Siyk Faundeyshan LLS

      Defendants:‘Ear Proparti Developmant — v nesastoyatelnost’ АD, Insolvency administrator of ‘Ear Proparti Developmant — v nesastoyatelnost’ АD

      Questions referred

               1.

               How is the criterion of the uncontested nature of an enforceable pecuniary claim within the meaning of the sixth recital in the preamble to, and Article 1 of, Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 to be interpreted?

               2.

               In cases in which national legislation of a Member State of the European Union, in whose territory the pecuniary claim is being enforced, does not determine whether the enforcement order is applicable to a pecuniary claim in insolvency proceedings which were initiated against the person whose property is affected by the enforcement, must the prohibition in Article 2(2)(b) of the Regulation be interpreted strictly and does it only apply to the contested pecuniary claims to be enforced or does it also relate to the uncontested pecuniary claims to be enforced?

               3.

               Is Article 2(2)(b) of the Regulation, according to which the Regulation shall not apply to bankruptcy, proceedings relating to the winding-up of insolvent companies or other legal persons, judicial arrangements, compositions and analogous proceedings, to be interpreted as meaning that the restriction only concerns the initiation of the proceedings referred to, or does that restriction also cover the whole course of the proceedings according to the stages of the proceedings provided for in the national legislation of the Member State of the European Union concerned?

               4.

               In accordance with the doctrine of the primacy of Community law and in the case of a gap in the national legislation of a Member State of the European Union, may the national court of the Member State in which insolvency proceedings were initiated against a person whose property is affected by the enforcement deliver a judgment which is different and contrary to the basic principles of the Regulation by way of interpretation of the tenth recital in the preamble to, and Article 26 of, the Regulation?


               19.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 117/27

         Action brought on 10 February 2005 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Republic of Iceland
   (Case E-2/05)
   (2005/C 117/08)
   An action against the Republic of Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 10 February 2005 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Niels Fenger and Bjørnar Alterskjær, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, Rue Belliard 35, B-1040 Brussels.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that by failing to abolish and recover within the prescribed period the aid provided for under the tax schemes declared incompatible with the EEA Agreement by decision No 21/04/COL of 25 February 2004, the Republic of Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 3 and 4 of said decision; and

               2.

               order the Republic of Iceland to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

               —

               In March 1999, Iceland adopted Act No 31/1999 on International Trading Companies without notifying the EFTA Surveillance Authority; cf. Article 1(3) of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement (the ‘SCA’).

               —

               On 25 February 2004, the EFTA Surveillance Authority adopted decision No 21/04/COL, finding that the tax measures of the Act constituted State aid according to Article 61(1) EEA, that the aid was unlawful on procedural grounds as notification had not been given, and that the aid was incompatible with the EEA Agreement.

               —

               Applying Article 14 in Part II of Protocol 3 to the SCA, the EFTA Surveillance Authority concluded that the aid should be recovered from the beneficiaries as from the fiscal year 1999.

               —

               The Republic of Iceland has failed to comply with decision No 21/04/COL within the prescribed time. Thus, the EFTA Surveillance Authority has referred the matter to the EFTA Court pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 1(2) in Part I of Protocol 3 to the SCA.


title: Case T-490/04: Action brought on 21 December 2004 by the Federal Republic of Germany against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               5.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 31/29

         Action brought on 21 December 2004 by the Federal Republic of Germany against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-490/04)
   (2005/C 31/54)
   Language of the case: German
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 21 December 2004 by the Federal Republic of Germany, represented by W.-D. Plessing and T. Lübbig, Rechtsanwalt, acting as Agents.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Decision K(2004)4001/3 of 20 October 2004 on the German legislation governing the area of mail pre-sorting services, in particular access for self-delivery intermediaries and mail consolidators to the public postal net work and the associated special rates (BdKEP – restrictions in the area of mail pre-sorting);

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   According to the contested decision, Paragraph 51(1), second sentence, point 5 of the Postgesetz (German Postal Law), under which Deutsche Post AG is granted for a transitional period a privileged legal position (the so-called exclusive licence) for its mail delivery activities, breaches Article 86(1) EC, in conjunction with Article 82 EC, in so far as that provision prevents commercial mail pre-sorting firms, irrespective of whether they are acting as self-delivery intermediaries for a single sender or as mail consolidators for several customers, from securing volume-dependent part-performance discounts for the delivery of mail to Deutsche Post AG sorting centres.
   In this action brought under the second paragraph of Article 230 EC, the Federal Republic of Germany submits that the contested decision breaches both Article 82 EC and Directive 97/67/EC on postal services (1) for the following reasons:

               —

               the Commission incorrectly assumes that the German provision extends the dominant market position of the universal service provider Deutsche Post AG within the reserved sector to the upstream market in mail pre-sorting, to the detriment of mail pre-sorting firms;

               —

               the differing treatment of self-delivery by senders as compared with that of commercial postal service providers does not constitute discrimination within the terms of 82 EC or the fifth indent of Article 12 of the Directive on postal services; and

               —

               the contested decision amounts to a premature intrusion into the area covered by the exclusive licence of Deutsche Post AG, which could lawfully be reserved under Article 7(1) of the Directive on postal services.

         The Federal Republic of Germany submits further that the contested decision is not adequately reasoned, contrary to Article 253 EC.

      (1)  Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service (OJ 1998 L 15, p. 14).


title: Case T-78/08: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 June 2009 — Baldesberger v OHIM (Shape of tweezers) (Community trade mark — Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark — Shape of tweezers — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/48

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 June 2009 — Baldesberger v OHIM (Shape of tweezers)
   (Case T-78/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark - Shape of tweezers - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2009/C 180/89
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Fides B. Baldesberger (represented by: F. Nielsen, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 December 2007 (Case R 1405/2007-4) regarding an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign in the shape of tweezers as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Ms Fides B. Baldesberger to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 107 of 26.4.2008.


title: Case C-244/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 19 May 2010 — Mesopotamia Broadcast A/S METV v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               28.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 234/20

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 19 May 2010 — Mesopotamia Broadcast A/S METV v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-244/10)
   ()
   2010/C 234/32
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesverwaltungsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Mesopotamia Broadcast A/S METV

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

      Question referred

   A ruling is sought from the Court of Justice of the European Union on whether and, if so, the circumstances under which the application of national legislation concerning the prohibition of an association for infringement of the principles of international understanding falls within the field coordinated by Council Directive 89/552/EEC (1) of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by Law, Regulation or Administrative Action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities, as amended by Directive 97/36/EC (2) of 30 June 1997 and, thus, is precluded by Article 2a of the directive?

      (1)  Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by Law, Regulation or Administrative Action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities (OJ 1989 L 298, p. 23).

      (2)  Directive 97/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997 amending Council Directive 89/552/EEC on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities (OJ 1997 L 202, p. 60).


title: Case C-439/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București (Romania) lodged on 24 September 2014  — SC Star Storage SA v Institutul Național de Cercetare Dezvoltare în Informatică (INCDI)

text:
               15.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 448/7

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București (Romania) lodged on 24 September 2014 — SC Star Storage SA v Institutul Național de Cercetare Dezvoltare în Informatică (INCDI)
   (Case C-439/14)
   (2014/C 448/09)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel București

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: SC Star Storage SA

      Defendant: Institutul Național de Cercetare Dezvoltare în Informatică (INCDI)

      Question referred

   Are the provisions in the third subparagraph of Article 1(1) and Article 1(3) of Directive 89/665 (1), as amended by Directive 2007/66 (2), to be interpreted as precluding a rule under which a ‘good conduct guarantee’ must be lodged as a prerequisite for being granted access to procedures for reviewing the decisions of contracting authorities, such as the rule laid down in Article 271a and Article 271b of [Ordonanța de urgență a Guvernului] (Emergency Ordinance) No 34/2006?

      (1)  Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33).

      (2)  Directive 2007/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007 amending Council Directives 89/665/EEC and 92/13/EEC with regard to improving the effectiveness of review procedures concerning the award of public contracts (OJ 2007 L 335, p. 31).


title: Case T-373/13 P: Appeal brought on 17 July 2013 by Geoffroy Alsteens against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 8 May 2013 in Case F-87/12 Alsteens v Commission

text:
               9.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 325/32

         Appeal brought on 17 July 2013 by Geoffroy Alsteens against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 8 May 2013 in Case F-87/12 Alsteens v Commission
   (Case T-373/13 P)
   2013/C 325/54
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Geoffroy Alsteens (Marcinelle, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, D. Abreu Caldas and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               Set aside the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Third Chamber) of 8 May 2013 in Case F-87/12 Alsteens v European Commission

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of his appeal, the appellant relies on single plea in law, alleging error of law, as the CST held that annulment of the decision to limit the extension period of the appellant’s contract as a member of temporary staff would place him retroactively under the system of contracts of indefinite duration. The appellant argues that that is not the case and submits that the CST infringed his right to an effective judicial remedy in finding that he could not apply for partial annulment of the decision to limit the extension period of his contract, namely that part of the decision limiting the duration of the extension in time.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 May 2001 in Case T-182/99 Georges Caravelis v European Parliament (Officials — Refusal of promotion — Consideration of comparative merits — Action for annulment and compensation)

text:
28.7.2001                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 212/23
1.    Annuls the decision of the selection board in competition             1.    Annuls the decision of the Parliament not to promote the
      COM/A/10/98 in so far as it excludes Ms Caprile and                         applicant to Grade A 4 during the 1998 promotion procedure;
      Mr Radelet from the subsequent tests in competition
      COM/A/10/98. Dismisses the claims of Ms Caprile and                   2.    Dismisses the application for compensation;
      Mr Radelet that all of the acts subsequent to that decision
      in connection with competition COM/A/10/98 should be                  3.    Orders the Parliament to pay the costs.
      annulled;
2.    Dismisses the actions brought by Ms Giulietti, Mr Dell’Olio           (1) OJ C 299 of 16.10.99.
      and Mr Fuhrmann;
3.    In Case T-174/99, orders the Commission to pay half of the
      applicants’ costs and to bear the entirety of its own costs;
4.    In Case T-167/99, orders each party to bear its own costs,
      including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
(1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.99.                                                                             of 5 April 2001
                                                                            in Case T-82/00 BIC SA and Others v Council of the
                                                                                European Union (1)
                                                                            (Anti-dumping — Pocket lighters originating in Japan —
                                                                            Regulation repealing anti-dumping duties — Obligation to
                                                                                state reasons — Action for annulment)
                                                                                (2001/C 212/43)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                           of 8 May 2001                                                        (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                            In Case T-82/00 BIC SA, established in Clichy (France),
in Case T-182/99 Georges Caravelis v European Parlia-                       Flamagas SA, established in Barcelona (Spain), Swedish Match
                               ment (1)                                     SA, established in Nyon (Switzerland), represented by
                                                                            A. Vianello, avocat, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
                                                                            against Council of the European Union (Agents: S. Marquardt,
(Officials — Refusal of promotion — Consideration of                        F.P. Ruggeri Laderchi and G.M. Berrisch) — application for
comparative merits — Action for annulment and compen-                       annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 174/2000 of
                                sation)                                     24 January 2000 repealing Council Regulation (EEC)
                                                                            No 3433/91 in so far as it imposes a definitive anti-dumping
                                                                            duty on imports of gas-fuelled, non-refillable pocket flint
                          (2001/C 212/42)
                                                                            lighters originating in Japan (OJ 2000 L 22, p. 16) — the Court
                                                                            of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition),
                                                                            composed of A.W.H. Meij, President, K. Lenaerts, A. Potocki,
                     (Language of the case: Greek)                          M. Jaeger and J. Pirrung, Judges; J. Palacio González, Adminis-
                                                                            trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 5 April 2001,
                                                                            in which it:
In Case T-182/99 Georges Caravelis, an official of the European
Parliament, residing in Brussels (Belgium), represented by                  1.    Dismisses the application;
C. Tagaras, avocat, against European Parliament (Agents:
Y. Pantalis and N. Korogiannakis) — application for annulment               2.    Orders the applicants to pay the costs.
of the Parliament’s decision not to promote the applicant to
Grade A 4 during the 1998 promotion procedure and also for
compensation for the non-material damage suffered by the                    (1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.00.
applicant — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber),
composed of P. Lindh, President, R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas and
J.D. Cooke, Judges; G. Herzig, Administrator, for the Registrar,
has given a judgment on 8 May 2001, in which it:


title: Order of the Court of Justice (Fourth Chamber) of 29 April 2004 in Case C-202/03 (reference by the Tribunale Amministrativo per la Lombardia, Sezione Staccato di Brescia, for a preliminary ruling): DAC SpA v Azienda Ospedaliera ‘Spedali Civili’ di Brescia (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Directive 89/665/EEC — Review procedures in the sphere of public procurement — Interim relief ante causam)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/31

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE

   (Fourth Chamber)
   of 29 April 2004
   in Case C-202/03 (reference by the Tribunale Amministrativo per la Lombardia, Sezione Staccato di Brescia, for a preliminary ruling): DAC SpA v Azienda Ospedaliera ‘Spedali Civili’ di Brescia (1)

   (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Directive 89/665/EEC - Review procedures in the sphere of public procurement - Interim relief ante causam)
   (2004/C 118/56)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case C-202/03 – reference to the Court of Justice pursuant to Article 234 EC by the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia, Sezione Staccata di Brescia (Regional Administrative Court for Lombardy, Brescia Division) (Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the case pending before that court between DAC SpA and Azienda Ospedaliera ‘Spedali Civili’ di Brescia, third party Pellegrini SpA, on the interpretation of Articles 1(3) and 2(1) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33), as amended by Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1) – the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet and K. Lenaerts, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General, R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 29 April 2004 the operative part of which is as follows:
   On a proper construction of Article 2(1) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts, the Member States are required to confer on their review bodies the power to adopt, irrespective of whether or not an action going to the substance of the case has already been brought, all interim measures, including measures to suspend the procedure for the award of the public procurement contract at issue.

      (1)  OJ C 171 of 19 July 2003.


title: Case T-49/06: Order of the Court of First Instance of 7 September 2007 — González Sánchez v OHIM — Bankinter (ENCUENTA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Article 63(4) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Lack of standing to bring proceedings — Inadmissibility)

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/48

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 7 September 2007 — González Sánchez v OHIM — Bankinter (ENCUENTA)
   (Case T-49/06) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Article 63(4) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Lack of standing to bring proceedings - Inadmissibility)
   (2007/C 269/86)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Francisco Javier González Sánchez (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: G. Justicia González, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas, agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Bankinter SA (Madrid, Spain)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 December 2005 (Case R 1116/2005-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Bankinter SA and the Confederación Española de Cajas de Ahorros.
   Operative part of the order
   The Court:

               1.

               dismisses the action as inadmissible;

               2.

               orders Francisco Javier González Sánchez to pay all of the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 310, 16.12.2006.


title: Case T-401/04: Order of the General Court of 16 December 2009 — Bactria v Commission

text:
               13.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/48

         Order of the General Court of 16 December 2009 — Bactria v Commission
   (Case T-401/04) (1)

   2010/C 37/71

      Language of the case: English

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

      (1)  OJ C 19, 22.1.2005.


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 3 December 2002 in Case T-181/02 R: Neue Erba Lautex GmbH Weberei und Veredlung v Commission of the European Communities (Procedure for interim relief — State aid — Aid granted to the new Länder — Rescue and restructuring aid — Duty to recover — Urgency — Balance of interests)

text:
C 55/26               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                             8.3.2003
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                             sels, represented by C. Tagaras, avocat, against the Commission
                           INSTANCE                                      of the European Communities (agents: H. Tserepa-Lacombe
                                                                         and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, seeking the suspension of oper-
                     of 3 December 2002                                  ation of decisions appointing a Deputy Head of Unit of Unit
                                                                         DG FC A.01 and Head of the Sector ‘Politiques internes et
                                                                         agences’ of that unit, the President of the Court of First Instance
in Case T-181/02 R: Neue Erba Lautex GmbH Weberei und                    made an order on 13 December 2002 in which it:
Veredlung v Commission of the European Communities
(Procedure for interim relief — State aid — Aid granted to
                                                                         (1) Dismissed the application for interim measures.
the new Länder — Rescue and restructuring aid — Duty to
          recover — Urgency — Balance of interests)
                                                                         (2) Reserved the costs.
                         (2003/C 55/73)
                  (Language of the case: German)
In Case T-181/02 R: Neue Erba Lautex GmbH Weberei und
Veredlung, a company established in Neugersdorf, Germany,
represented by Professor U. Ehricke, with an address for service
in Luxembourg, supported by Freistaat Sachsen, represented by
M. Schütte, Lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
against Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                  Action brought on 29 November 2002 by Vitakraft-
V. Kreuschitz, V. di Bucci and T. Scharf) — application for a            Werke Wührmann & Sohn GmbH & Co. KG against the
stay of execution of the Commission’s Decision 2002/783/EC               Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
of 12 March 2002 on State aid C 62/2001 (ex NN 8/2000)                                           Marks and Designs)
implemented by Germany for Neue Erba Lautex GmbH and
Erba Lautex GmbH in bankruptcy (OJ 2002 L 282, p. 48) and,
in the alternative, an application for staged reimbursement of                                    (Case T-356/02)
the aid in question — the President of the Court of First
Instance has made an order on 3 December 2002, in which
he:
                                                                                (2003/C 55/75)
1.   Dismissed the application for interim measures;
2.   Ordered that costs be reserved.                                     (Language of the case to be decided in accordance with Article 131(2)
                                                                         of the Rules of Procedure Language in which the application was
                                                                                drafted: German)
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
                           INSTANCE                                      An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                         Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
                                                                         Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                     of 13 December 2002                                 29 November 2002 by Vitakraft-Werke Wührmann & Sohn
                                                                         GmbH & Co. KG, Bremen (Germany), represented by U. Sander
in Case T-234/02 R: Christos Michael v Commission of                     also a party before the Board of Appeal: KRAFFT, S.A,
                 the European Communities                                Andoain, Spain
(Interim measures — Officials — Appointment decisions —
        Admissibility — Urgency — Lack of urgency)
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                         (2003/C 55/74)
                                                                         —      partially annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal
                   (Language of the case: Greek)                                of 4 September 2002 inasmuch as the appeal of KRAFFT
                                                                                S.A. was upheld and inasmuch as the applicant’s appeal
                                                                                was not allowed
In Case T-234/02 R, Christos Michael, an official of the
Commission of the European Communities, resident in Brus-                —      order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case F-112/10: Action brought on 2 November 2010 — Trentea v FRA

text:
               15.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/43

         Action brought on 2 November 2010 — Trentea v FRA
   (Case F-112/10)
   ()
   2011/C 13/88
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Cornelia Trentea (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: L. Levi and M.Vandenbussche, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA)

      The subject matter and description of the proceedings

   First, annulment of the decision of the Authority Responsible for Concluding Contracts of Employment rejecting the Appellant's candidature for a post of administrative assistant in the procurement and finance fields and of the decision appointing another candidate. Second, compensation for material and non-material loss.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Decision of the Authority Responsible for Concluding Contracts of Employment of 5 June 2010 rejecting the Appellant's candidature for post (ref. TAADMIN-AST4-2009) and the Decision appointing another candidate;

               —

               If necessary, annul the Decision of 22 July 2010 rejecting the Appellant's complaint and of the Decision of 27 September 2010 rejecting the Appellant's Request for review and Completion to the Complaint;

               —

               Order that the Defendant compensates the Appellant's material prejudice corresponding to the difference between her current salary and the AST4 salary, until retirement age, including all allocations and indemnities and compensation of pension rights;

               —

               Order that the Defendant compensates the Appellant's moral prejudice evaluated ex aequo et bono at 10 000 Euro;

               —

               order that the Defendant pays all costs.


title: Case T-32/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 November 2006 — Lichtwer Pharma AG v OHIM — Laboratoire Lafon (Lyco-A) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark Lyco-A — Admissibility of the appeal before the Board of Appeal — Cost of proceedings — Apportionment)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/55

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 November 2006 — Lichtwer Pharma AG v OHIM — Laboratoire Lafon (Lyco-A)
   (Case T-32/04) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark Lyco-A - Admissibility of the appeal before the Board of Appeal - Cost of proceedings - Apportionment)
   (2006/C 326/117)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Lichtwer Pharma AG (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: H. Kunz-Hallstein and R. Kunz-Hallstein, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Weberndörfer, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Laboratoire L. Lafon SA (Maisons-Alfort, France)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 November 2003 (Case R 1007/2002-4) insofar as that decision rules on the apportionment of the costs incurred in the opposition and appeal proceedings
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls paragraph 2 of the operative part of the decision of 13 November 2003 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Case R 1007/2002-4);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 106, 30.4.2004.


title: Case C-31/13 P: Appeal brought on 22 January 2013 by Hungary against the judgment delivered on 18 November 2012 in Case T-194/10 Hungary v Commission

text:
               9.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/13

         Appeal brought on 22 January 2013 by Hungary against the judgment delivered on 18 November 2012 in Case T-194/10 Hungary v Commission
   (Case C-31/13 P)
   2013/C 71/20
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Parties

      Appellant: Hungary (represented by: M.Z. Fehér and K. Szíjjártó, agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission, Slovak Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment of the judgment of the General Court under appeal.

               —

               The Court of Justice to give final judgment in the matter, as permitted by Article 61 of its Statute.

               —

               An order that the Commission bear the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In its appeal, the Hungarian Government alleges first that the General Court, in the judgment under appeal, misapplied the law of the European Union by declaring that the disputed entry in the E-Bacchus database had no legal effects so that the action brought in that regard was inadmissible. Moreover, the Hungarian Government also considers that the grounds stated for the judgment of the General Court are insufficient, in so far as in several instances it failed entirely to consider the allegations on the basis of which the Hungarian Government questioned the position of the Commission and confined itself to confirming that position without ruling on the merits of those allegations. Secondly, the Hungarian Government essentially repeats the argument on the merits put forward in the proceedings before the General Court in support of its claim that the Court of Justice, if the appeal is declared admissible, should give final judgment in the matter, as permitted by Article 61 of its Statute.
   Through the creation of the E-Bacchus database, the legislature of the European Union established an industrial property register of protected designations of origin and geographical indications in the European Union which certifies the existence of such protection at Union level. As it is a single register, it cannot be accepted that only the entry of new names has legal effects: the same legal effects must attach to any entry in that database.
   The General Court is mistaken in its assessment that, in the case of existing names, entry in the E-Bacchus database is merely an automatic (formal) transition from one regulatory system to another. According to the Hungarian Government, such entry is a substantive transformation which raises the protection of names, which previously happened at national level, to European Union level.
   It is unacceptable, and breaches the principle of equality, if old and new names are assessed differently as regards the legal effects of entry in the E-Bacchus register. The legal effects derived from the entry must be the same whatever the name, even if a different procedure is followed for entry according to whether it is an old name or a new one.
   The legal effects of entry also necessarily give rise to a certain monitoring obligation for the Commission at the point of developing and amending the content of the E-Bacchus database. In particular, the principle of sound administration means that the Commission should have ascertained what the legal situation was in Slovakia on the reference date (1 August 2009) and whether the original entry was in fact incorrect.
   The General Court has also failed to fulfil its obligation to state reasons, in that when it assessed the merits of the case it failed to consider the Hungarian allegations questioning the position of the Commission but merely confirmed that position without ruling on the merits of those allegations.
   In the view of the Hungarian Government, in amending the entry the Commission breached the relevant provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 (1) and Commission Regulation (EC) No 607/2009 (2) having regard to the fact that, through the contested amendment of the original entry in the E-Bacchus register, it guaranteed the automatic protection under the new legislation of a name which could not be considered to be an ‘existing protected wine name’ pursuant to Article 118s of Regulation No 1234/2007. The Hungarian Government states that the name ‘Tokajská vinohradnícka oblast’, contained in Slovak Law 313/2009, adopted on 30 June 2009 and published in the Slovak official journal on 30 July 2009, is the one that must be considered to be an existing protected name.
   Similarly, the Hungarian Government alleges that in its management of the E-Bacchus database, especially by making the entry contested in the present case, the Commission breached the fundamental principles of sound administration, cooperation in good faith and legal certainty, recognised by European Union Law.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (OJ 2007 L 299, p. 1).

      (2)  Commission regulation (EC) No 607/2009 of 14 July 2009 laying down certain detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 as regards protected designations of origin and geographical indications, traditional terms, labelling and presentation of certain wine sector products (OJ 2009 L 193, p. 60).


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 13 January 1999 in Case T-1/96: Bernhard Böcker-Lensing and Ludger Schulze-Beiering v. Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (Action for damages - Non-contractual liability - Milk - Additional levy - Reference quantity - Producer having entered into a non-marketing undertaking - Voluntary non-resumption of production upon expiry of the undertaking - Acts of national authorities)

text:
20.2.1999           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 48/23
       Removal from the register of Case C-13/98 (1)              from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Firenze):
                       (1999/C 48/48)                             Centro Servizi Acciai Rivestiti Spa (CSAR) v. Direzione
                                                                  Regionale delle Entrate per la Toscana and Ufficio delle
By order of 9 December 1998 the Court of Justice of the           Imposte Diretti di Firenze.
European Communities has ordered the removal from the
register of Case C-13/98 (request for a preliminary ruling        (1) OJ C 94, 28.3.1998.
                                                 COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                         2. Orders the applicants to pay the costs.
                    of 13 January 1999
                                                                  (1) OJ C 64, 2.3.1996.
in Case T-1/96: Bernhard Böcker-Lensing and Ludger
Schulze-Beiering v. Council of the European Union and
       Commission of the European Communities (1)
(Action for damages Ð Non-contractual liability Ð Milk
Ð Additional levy Ð Reference quantity Ð Producer
having entered into a non-marketing undertaking Ð                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Voluntary non-resumption of production upon expiry of                                 of 17 December 1998
      the undertaking Ð Acts of national authorities)
                                                                  in Case T-203/96: Embassy Limousines & Services v.
                       (1999/C 48/49)                                                European Parliament (1)
                                                                  (Arbitration clause Ð Existence of a contract Ð
                                                                  Non-contractual liability Ð Withdrawal of an invitation
              (Language of the case: German)                      to tender Ð Legitimate expectations Ð Assessment of
                                                                                damage)
                                                                                (1999/C 48/50)
In Case T-1/96: Bernhard Böcker-Lensing and Ludger
Schulze-Beiering,    residing   at    Borken     (Germany),                       (Language of the case: French)
represented by Bernd Meisterernst, Mechtild Düsing,
Dietrich Manstetten, Frank Schulze and Klaus Kettner,
Rechtsanwälte, Münster, with an address for service in            In Case T-203/96: Embassy Limousines & Services,
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Dupong and Dupong,                  established in Diegem (Belgium), represented by Eric
4-6 Rue de la Boucherie, v. Council of the European               Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
Union (Agents: Arthur Brautigam, Hans-Jürgen Rabe,                Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du
Georg M. Berrisch and Marco NuÂnÄez-Müller) and                   Fort Rheinsheim against European Parliament (Agents:
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: Dierk             FrancËois Vainker, Anders Neergaard and Charles Price) Ð
Booû, Michael Niejahr, Hans-Jürgen Rabe, Georg M.                 application for compensation for the damage allegedly
Berrisch and Marco NuÂnÄez-Müller) Ð application for              suffered by the applicant on account of the wrongful
damages pursuant to Article 178 and the second                    conduct of the Parliament in connection with Invitation to
paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty for the losses          Tender No 95/S 158-76321/FR relating to a contract for
suffered by the applicants as a result of their having been       passenger transport using chauffeur-driven vehicles,
prevented from marketing milk pursuant to Council                 brought pursuant to Article 181 of the EC Treaty, under
Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting              the arbitration clause in the third paragraph of Article 6
general rules for the application of the levy referred to in      of the specifications of that invitation to tender and
Article 5(c) of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk            Article VIII of framework contract PE-TRANS-BXL-95/6,
and milk products sector (OJ L 90, 1.4.1984, p. 13),              and, in the alternative, pursuant to Article 178 and the
as supplemented by Commission Regulation (EEC)                    second paragraph of Article 215 of that Treaty Ð the
No 1371/84 (OJ L 132, 18.5.1984, p. 11) Ð the Court of            Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: P.
First Instance (First Chamber), composed of: B.                   Lindh, President, and K. Lenaerts and J. D. Cooke,
Vesterdorf, President, R. M. Moura Ramos and P.                   Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the
Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a                 Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 December 1998, in
judgment on 13 January 1999, in which it:                         which it:
                                                                  1. Orders the European Parliament to pay to the
1. Dismisses the application.                                         applicant a sum of BEF 5 000 000.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 5 October 1995 in Case C-321/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Nürnberg): José Imbernon Martínez v. Bundesanstalt für Arbeit (Social security - Family allowances - Residence on the national territory)

text:
 11 . 11 . 95            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 299/5
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        of 4 October 1995                                                        ( Fifth Chamber )
in Case C-291 /92 ( reference for a preliminary ruling                                         of 5 October 1995
from the Bundesfinanzhof): Finanzamt Uelzen v. Dieter
                           Armbrecht ( 1 )                             in Case C-321 /93 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                       the Sozialgericht Niirnberg ): Jose Imbernon Martinez v.
                  ( VAT — Taxable transactions)                                           Bundesanstalt fiir Arbeit ( 1 )
                           ( 95/C 299/06 )                             (Social security — Family allowances — Residence on the
                                                                                national territory)
                                                                                ( 95 /C 299/07 )
                 (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be           (Provisional translation : the definitive translation will be
           published in the European Court Reports)                             published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                       In Case C-321 /93 : reference to the Court under Article 177
In Case C-291 /92 : reference to the Court under Article 177           of the EEC Treaty by the Sozialgericht Nurnberg ( Germany )
of the EEC Treaty from the Bundesfinanzhof ( Federal                   for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before
Finance Court ) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings            that    court    between Jose         Imbernon     Martinez and
pending before that court between Finanzamt Uelzen and                 Bundesanstalt fiir Arbeit — on the interpretation of
Dieter Armbrecht — on the interpretation of Articles 5 ( 1 ),          Article 73 of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 of
17 ( 2 ) and 20 ( 2 ) of the Sixth Council Directive                   14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes
( 77/388/EEC ) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the              to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to
laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —                 members of their families moving within the Community, as
Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of                     amended by Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 3427/89 of
assessment ( OJ 1977 L 145 , p. 1 ) — the Court, composed of           30 October ' 1989 ( OJ 1989 L 331 , p. 1 ) — the Court (Fifth
G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, F. A. Schockweiler,               Chamber ), composed of C. Gulmann , President of the
P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann and P. Jann ( Presidents of               Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida ( Rapporteur ), D. A. O.
Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida , J. L.           Edward , J. -. P. Puissochet and L. Sevon , Judges ;
Murray ( Rapporteur ), D. A. O. Edward , G. Hirsch and                 Advocate-General : M. B. Elmer; Registrar : H. von Holstein ,
H. Ragnemalm , Judges; F. G. Jacobs , Advocate-General ;               Deputy Registrar, gave a judgment on 5 October 1995 , the
L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a                   operative part of which is as follows :
judgment on 4 October 1 995 , the operative part of which is
as follows :                                                           1 . Article 73 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of
                                                                            14 June 1971 on the application of social security
                                                                           schemes to employed persons , to self-employed persons
1 . where a taxable person sells property part of which he                 and to members of their families moving within the
     had chosen to reserve for his private use, he does not act             Community, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC)
      with respect to the sale of that part as a taxable person             No 3427/89 of 30 October 1 989, is to be interpreted as
      within the meaning of Article 2 ( 1 ) of the Sixth Council           meaning that where under the tax legislation of a
      Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the                          Member State to which that State 's social legislation
      harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating               refers entitlement to and the amount of benefits for
      to turnover taxes — Common system of value added                     dependent children is linked to their residence in the
      tax: uniform basis of assessment;                                     national territory that condition must be regarded as
                                                                           fulfilled if they reside in the territory ofanother Member
                                                                           State ;
2 . where a taxable person sells property part of which he
      had chosen at the time ofacquisition not to assign to his        2 . Article 73 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 is to be
      business, only the part of the property assigned to his               interpreted as meaning that where under the tax
      business is to he taken into account for the application of           legislation ofa Member State to which that State 's social
      Article 17 (2) of the said Directive;                                 legislation refers entitlement to and the amount of
                                                                            benefits for dependent children is linked to residence in
                                                                            the national territory of the worker 's spouse that
3 . the adjustment of the input-tax deduction under                         condition must be regarded as fulfilled where the spouse
      Article 20 (2) of the said Directive must be limited to the           resides in the territory of another Member State. For the
      part of the property assigned to the business.                       purposes of determining entitlement to and the amount
                                                                            of the benefit all the relevant tax legislation must be
                                                                            applied as if the spouse resided in the Member State
(') OJ No C 212 , 18 . 8 . 1992 .                                          providing the benefits .
                                                                       (') O ) N « C 222 , 18 . 8 . 1993 .


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln by order of that court of 18 April 1996 in the interlocutory proceedings between Metronome Musik GmbH and Music Point Hokamp GmbH (Case C-200/96)

text:
No C 233/6               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       10 . 8 . 96
certain sectors is not enough to bring the infringement to an             Administratif ( Administrative Court ), Paris, of 3 April
end, given that the wording of Article 213-1 , which subsists              1 996 , which was received at the Court Registry on 12 June
in the French Code du Travail , simply prohibits night                     1 996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Laboratoires de
working for women in industry as a whole .                                Thérapeutique Moderne ( LTM ) v. Fonds d'Intervention et
                                                                          de Régularisation du Marché du Sucre ( FIRS ) on the
C ) OJ No L 39 , 1976 , p . 40 .                                          following question :
( 2 ) Case C-158/91 Levy [ 1993J ECR 1-4300 .
( 3 ) In response to the letter giving formal notice and the reasoned     Having regard to their composition, presentation and
      opinion, the French Government relied on a communication            purpose, do the products 'Alvityl 50 Dragées ' and
      published on 13 December 1993 in the Official Journal of the
      French Republic, p . 4517 et seq .
                                                                          'Strongenol 20 Ampoules' fall within the scope of
                                                                          subheading 21 of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1010/86 of
                                                                          25 March 1986 on the classification of goods or Chapter 30
                                                                          of the Common Customs Tariff ( 1 ) ?
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht                   t 1 ) OJ No L 94, 9 . 4 . 1986 , p . 9 .
Kôln by order of that court of 18 April 1996 in the
interlocutory proceedings between Metronome Musik
            GmbH and Music Point Hokamp GmbH
                           ( Case C-200/96 )
                             ( 96/C 233/09 )                              Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
                                                                          Administratif, Paris, by judgment of that court of 3 April
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    1996       in  the  case    of Laboratoires    Valda   v.   Fonds
European Communities by an order of the Landgericht Kôln                  d'Intervention et de Régularisation du Marché du Sucre
( Regional Court, Cologne ) of 18 April 1 996, which was                                                   ( FIRS )
received at the Court Registry on 13 June 1996 , for a                                              ( Case C-202/96 )
preliminary ruling in the interlocutory proceedings between
Metronome Musik GmbH and Music Point Hokamp                                                           ( 96/C 233/11 )
GmbH on the following question :
                                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Is the introduction of an exclusive rental right, contrary to             European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal
the principle of the exhaustion of distribution rights, by                Administratif ( Administrative Court ), Paris, of 3 April
Article 1 ( 1 ) of Council Directive 92/100/EEC of                        1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on 12 June
19 November 1992 on rental rights and lending rights and                  1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Laboratoires
on certain rights related to copyright in the field of                    Valda v . Fonds d'Intervention et de Régularisation du
intellectual property ( 1 ) compatible with Community law, in             Marché du Sucre ( FIRS ) on the following questions :
particular Community fundamental rights ?
                                                                         — May Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 717/85 of
n OJ No L 346 , 1992 , p . 61 .                                                 19 March 1985 on the classification of goods within
                                                                                subheading 17.04 D I of the common customs tariff ( 1 )
                                                                                be interpreted as referring to goods whose composition
                                                                                ( percentage by weight) is different from that indicated in
                                                                                Article 1 of that Regulation ?
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
Administratif, Paris, by judgment of that court of 3 April               — If the answer to the first question is in the negative, must
1996 in the case of Laboratoires de Thérapeutique Moderne                       Chapter 30.04 of the customs nomenclature, which
( LTM ) v. Fonds d'Intervention et de Régularisation du                         refers to medicaments, be interpreted as including a
                      Marché du Sucre ( FIRS )                                  product which contains sugar but above all active
                          ( Case C-201 /96 )                                    flavouring agents having medicinal properties in such a
                             ( 96/C 233/ 10 )                                   proportion that it is used essentially for therapeutic and
                                                                                prophylactic purposes ?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal                          (') OJ No L 78 , 21 . 3 . 1985 , p . 13 .