title: Case F-124/11: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 30 September 2013 — Possanzini, v Frontex (Civil service — Frontex staff — Temporary staff — Career development report containing negative assessments of the reporting officer not communicated to the person concerned — Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract — Decision based on the opinion of the reporting officer — Rights of defence — Infringement — Dispute of a financial character — Unlimited jurisdiction)

text:
               8.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/30

      Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 30 September 2013 — Possanzini, v Frontex
      (Case F-124/11) (1)

      (Civil service - Frontex staff - Temporary staff - Career development report containing negative assessments of the reporting officer not communicated to the person concerned - Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract - Decision based on the opinion of the reporting officer - Rights of defence - Infringement - Dispute of a financial character - Unlimited jurisdiction)
      (2014/C 71/57)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Daniele Possanzini (Pisa, Italy) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex) (represented by: S. Vuorensola and H. Caniard, Agents, and D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

         Re:

      Action for annulment of the decision to revoke the decision to renew the applicant’s temporary employment contract.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Tribunal:

                  1.

                  Annuls the decision of 28 March 2011 not to renew the contract of Mr Possanzini as a member of the temporary staff, adopted by the Executive Director of the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union;

                  2.

                  Orders the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union to pay Mr Possanzini the sum of EUR 5 000 by way of damages;

                  3.

                  Declares that the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union shall bear its own costs and orders it to pay the costs incurred by Mr Possanzini.

         (1)  OJ C 25, 28. 1. 2012, p. 72.


title: Case T-97/14: Action brought on 13 February 2014 — Harry’s New York Bar v OHIM — Harrys Pubar (HARRY’S NEW YORK BAR)

text:
               28.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/31

         Action brought on 13 February 2014 — Harry’s New York Bar v OHIM — Harrys Pubar (HARRY’S NEW YORK BAR)
   (Case T-97/14)
   2014/C 129/38
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Harry’s New York Bar SA (Paris, France) (represented by: S. Arnaud, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Harrys Pubar AB (Gothenburg, Sweden)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 November 2013 given in Joined Cases R 1038/2012-1 and R 1045/2012-1;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘HARRY’S NEW YORK BAR’ for goods and services in Classes 25, 30, 32 and 43 — Community trade mark application No 3 383 445

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Swedish trade mark registrations Nos 356 009, 320 026, 315 142, 55 6513-1066 for goods and services in Classes 25 and 42

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Allowed the opposition in part

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Upheld the appeal in part in Case R 1038/2012-1 and dismissed the appeal in Case R 1045/2012-1

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and 4 CTMR.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 12 September 1995 in the case of Wiener S.I. GmbH v. Hauptzollamt Emmerich (Case C-338/95)

text:
9 . 12 . 95           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      No C 333/ 11
30 October 1995 ( Case C-342/95 ) respectively, for a                 6 . Is the second paragraph of Article 177 of the EC Treaty
preliminary ruling in criminal proceedings against Giuseppe                 to be interpreted as precluding, in cases such as this, the
Piccolo ( Case C-331 /95 ), Mario Corbo and Others ( Case                   grant by the Finance Court of leave to appeal pursuant
C-332/95 ) and Miranda Viola ( Case C-342/95 ). The                         to the second sentence of paragraph 128 ( 3 ) of the
questions referred by the Pretura Circondariale di Roma —                   Finanzgerichtsordnung ( Code of Procedure before
Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli to the Court of Justice for a                  the Finance Court) read in conjunction with
preliminary ruling are identical with those in Case                         paragraph 115 ( 2 ) ( 1 ) thereof?
C-187/95 C ).
                                                                      ( 1 ) OJ, English Special Edition 1968 ( I ), p. 176 .
(') OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 , p . 14 .                            ( 2 ) OJ No L 41 , 18 . 2 . 1992 , p . 9 .
                                                                      ( 3 ) OJ No L 302 , 19 . 10 . 1992 , p . 1 .
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht
Hamburg by order of that court of 21 September 1995 in                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof
the case of Kriiger GmbH & Co. KG v. Hauptzollamt                     by order of that court of 12 September 1995 in the case of
                        Hamburg-Jonas                                         Wiener S.I. GmbH v. Hauptzollamt Emmerich
                       ( Case C-334/95 )                                                           Case C-338/95 )
                          ( 95/C 333/21 )                                                          ( 95/C 333/22 )
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht                    European Communities by order of the Seventh Chamber
Hamburg ( Finance Court, Hamburg) of 21 September                     of the Bundesfinanzhof ( Federal Finance Court ) of
1995 , which was received at the Court Registry on                    12 September 1995 , which was received at the Court
23 October 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of             Registry on 26 October 1 995 , for a preliminary ruling in the
Kriiger GmbH & Co . KG v. Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas                  case of Wiener S.I. GmbH v. Hauptzollamt Emmerich on the
( Principal Customs Office , Hamburg-Jonas ) on the                   following question:
following questions:
                                                                      Is the term 'nightdresses' within the meaning of tariff
1 . Does Regulation ( EEC ) No 804/68 ( ] ), read in                  heading 60.04 of the 1985 Common Customs Tariff,
     conjunction with the Annex thereto, as amended by                specifically tarif subheading 60.04 B IV b 2 bb, to be
     Regulation ( EEC ) No 374/92 (2 ), infringe the second           interpreted as covering exclusively 'other' under garments
     subparagraph of Article 40 ( 3 ) of the EC Treaty, and is it     which, in view of their characteristics, are clearly intended
     consequently invalid, inasmuch as it does not provide            only to be worn as night wear, or does it also cover products
     for the grant of an export refund for milk and/or milk           which, on the basis of their appearance, are intended mainly,
     products contained in edible preparations falling                but not exclusively, to be worn in bed ?
     within Combined Nomenclature code No 2101 10
     and produced with a basis of extracts, essences or
     concentrates of coffee ?
2 . Does a breach of the prohibition of discrimination                Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep
     preclude the recovery of an export refund granted in             te Antwerpen by judgment/order of that court of
     respect of milk and/or milk products contained in edible         25 October 1995 in the case of Peter Schepens v. Belgian
     preparations falling within Combined Nomenclature                                                   State
     code No 2101 10 and produced with a basis of extracts                                       ( Case C-340/95 )
     of coffee ?
                                                                                ( 95/C 333/23 )
3 . Is Article 244 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 2913/92 ( 3 ) ( the
     Customs Code ) applicable to the suspension of                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     implementation of decisions ordering the recovery of an          European Communities by a judgment of the Hof van
     export refund which has been granted ?                           Beroep ( Court of Appeal ) in Antwerp of 25 October 1995 ,
                                                                      which as received at the Court Registry on 30 October 1995 ,
4 . If the answer to question 3 is in the affirmative : in cases      for a preliminary ruling in the case of Peter Schepens v.
     in which there exists doubt as to the validity of the            Belgian State on the following questions :
     Community legislation on which the decision is based, is
     the suspension of implementation to be determined in              1 . Do Articles 18 ( 4 ) and 27 of the Sixth Council Directive
     accordance with Article 244 of the Customs Code or in                  of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of
     accordance with which other criteria ?                                 the Member States relating to turnover taxes (VAT
                                                                            Directive 77/388/EEC ) (') have direct effect in the
5 . If the answer to question 3 is in the negative: in cases in             national legal systems of the Member States and thus in
     which there exists doubt as to the validity of the                     Belgian law ?
     Community legislation on which the decision is based,
     what are the criteria according to which the suspension          2 . If so, does Article 18 (4 ) of the Directive preclude a
     of implementation falls to be determined ?                             Member State from refusing to refund to a taxable


title: Case C-430/12: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 11 July 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bacău, Romania) — Elena Luca v Casa de Asigurări de Sănătate Bacău (Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure — Social security — Freedom to provide services — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Article 22 — Sickness insurance — Hospital treatment provided in another Member State — Prior authorisation — Compensation for the insured person)

text:
               19.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 304/3

         Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 11 July 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bacău, Romania) — Elena Luca v Casa de Asigurări de Sănătate Bacău
   (Case C-430/12) (1)

   (Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure - Social security - Freedom to provide services - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Article 22 - Sickness insurance - Hospital treatment provided in another Member State - Prior authorisation - Compensation for the insured person)
   2013/C 304/04
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel Bacău, Romania

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Elena Luca

      Defendant: Casa de Asigurări de Sănătate Bacău

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Curtea de Apel Bacău — Interpretation of Article 56 TFEU and Article 22 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (English Special Edition, Series I, 1971(II), pp. 416 to 463), as amended — National legislation under which prior authorisation is required in order to obtain full reimbursement of expenses incurred in respect of medical treatment abroad — Determination in the absence of prior authorisation, of expenditure incurred in another Member State determined in accordance with the criteria of the State of affiliation

      Operative part of the order

   Article 49 EC and Article 22 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community, in the version amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 592/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008, do not, in principle, preclude legislation of a Member State which makes the entitlement to full reimbursement of expenses incurred in respect of hospital treatment provided in another Member State subject to obtaining prior authorisation. On the other hand, those provisions preclude such legislation which is interpreted as excluding, in all cases, full reimbursement by the competent institution for hospital treatment given without prior authorisation.
   Where a refusal to grant reimbursement, because of the absence of prior authorisation alone, of hospital treatment provided in another Member State and paid for by the insured person is, having regard to the circumstances of the case, unfounded, that person is entitled to reimbursement for that treatment by the competent institution up to the amount determined by the legislation of that Member State. If that amount is less than that which would have resulted from application of the legislation in force in the Member State of residence if hospital treatment had been provided there, additional reimbursement corresponding to the difference between those two amounts must in addition be made by the competent institution, up to the amount of the expenditure actually incurred.
   Where a refusal to grant reimbursement is well-founded, the insured person is entitled, under Article 49 EC, to a reimbursement of hospital treatment only within the limits of cover guaranteed by the health insurance system to which that person is affiliated.

      (1)  OJ C 399, 22.12.2012.


title: Case C-428/06 to C-434/06: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 September 2008 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco (Spain)) — Unión General de Trabajadores de La Rioja (UGT-Rioja) (C-428/06), Comunidad Autónoma de La Rioja (C-429/06) v Juntas Generales del Territorio Histórico de Vizcaya, Diputación Foral de Vizcaya, Cámara de Comercio, Industria y Navegación de Bilbao, Confederación Empresarial Vasca (Confebask) and Comunidad Autónoma de La Rioja (C-430/06), Comunidad Autónoma de Castilla y León (C-433/06) v Diputación Foral de Álava, Juntas Generales de Álava, Confederación Empresarial Vasca (Confebask) and Comunidad Autónoma de La Rioja (C-431/06), Comunidad Autónoma de Castilla y León (C-432/06) v Diputación Foral de Guipúzcoa, Juntas Generales de Guipúzcoa, Confederación Empresarial Vasca (Confebask) and Comunidad Autónoma de Castilla y León (C-434/06) v Diputación Foral de Vizcaya, Juntas Generales del Territorio Histórico de Vizcaya, Cámara de Comercio, Industria y Navegación de Bilbao, Confederación Empresarial Vasca (Confebask) (State aid — Tax measures adopted by a regional or local authority — Selective nature)

text:
               8.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 285/6

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 September 2008 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco (Spain)) — Unión General de Trabajadores de La Rioja (UGT-Rioja) (C-428/06), Comunidad Autónoma de La Rioja (C-429/06) v Juntas Generales del Territorio Histórico de Vizcaya, Diputación Foral de Vizcaya, Cámara de Comercio, Industria y Navegación de Bilbao, Confederación Empresarial Vasca (Confebask) and Comunidad Autónoma de La Rioja (C-430/06), Comunidad Autónoma de Castilla y León (C-433/06) v Diputación Foral de Álava, Juntas Generales de Álava, Confederación Empresarial Vasca (Confebask) and Comunidad Autónoma de La Rioja (C-431/06), Comunidad Autónoma de Castilla y León (C-432/06) v Diputación Foral de Guipúzcoa, Juntas Generales de Guipúzcoa, Confederación Empresarial Vasca (Confebask) and Comunidad Autónoma de Castilla y León (C-434/06) v Diputación Foral de Vizcaya, Juntas Generales del Territorio Histórico de Vizcaya, Cámara de Comercio, Industria y Navegación de Bilbao, Confederación Empresarial Vasca (Confebask)
   (Case C-428/06 to C-434/06) (1)

   (State aid - Tax measures adopted by a regional or local authority - Selective nature)
   (2008/C 285/08)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Referring court
   Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco, Spain
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Unión General de Trabajadores de La Rioja (UGT-Rioja) (C-428/06), Comunidad Autónoma de La Rioja (C-429/06), Comunidad Autónoma de La Rioja (C-430/06), Comunidad Autónoma de Castilla y León (C-433/06), Comunidad Autónoma de La Rioja (C-431/06), Comunidad Autónoma de Castilla y León (C-432/06), Comunidad Autónoma de Castilla y León (C-432/06)

      Defendants: Juntas Generales del Territorio Histórico de Vizcaya, Diputación Foral de Vizcaya, Cámara de Comercio, Industria y Navegación de Bilbao, Confederación Empresarial Vasca (Confebask), Diputación Foral de Álava, Juntas Generales de Álava, Diputación Foral de Guipúzcoa, Juntas Generales de Guipúzcoa, Juntas Generales del Territorio Histórico de Vizcaya, Cámara de Comercio, Industria y Navegación de Bilbao
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco — State aid — Interpretation of Article 87(1) EC — Tax measures adopted by an infra-State body — Rate of tax lower than national rate and provision for specific tax deductions
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 87(1) EC is to be interpreted as meaning that, for the purpose of assessing whether a measure is selective, account is to be taken of the institutional, procedural and economic autonomy enjoyed by the authority adopting that measure. It is for the national court, which alone has jurisdiction to identify the national law applicable and to interpret it, as well as to apply Community law to the cases before it, to determine whether the Historical Territories and the Autonomous Community of the Basque Country have such autonomy, which, if so, would have the result that the laws adopted within the limits of the areas of competence granted to those infra State bodies by the Spanish Constitution of 1978 and the other provisions of Spanish law are not of a selective nature within the meaning of the concept of State aid as referred to in Article 87(1) EC.

      (1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.


title: Case C-363/06: Order of the Court of 20 February 2008 — Comunidad Autónoma de Valencia — Generalidad Valenciana v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure — Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice — Representation by a lawyer — Compliance with the essential procedural requirements of the Rules of Procedure — Principle of non-discrimination — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

text:
               24.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 128/15

         Order of the Court of 20 February 2008 — Comunidad Autónoma de Valencia — Generalidad Valenciana v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-363/06) (1)

   (Appeal - Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure - Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice - Representation by a lawyer - Compliance with the essential procedural requirements of the Rules of Procedure - Principle of non-discrimination - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)
   (2008/C 128/25)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Appellant: Comunidad Autónoma de Valencia — Generalidad Valenciana (represented by: C. Fernández Vicién, I. Moreno-Tapia Rivas, M.J. Rodríguez Blasco, abogados, and J.V. Sánchez-Tarazaga Marcelino)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and L. Escobar Guerrero, acting as Agents)
   Intervener in support of the appellant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: N. Días Abad)
   Intervener in support of the other party to the proceedings: Italian Republic (represented by:I.M. Braguglia, Agent, and P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato)
   Re:
   Appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 5 July January 2006 in Case T-357/05 Comunidad Autónoma de Valencia — Generalidad Valenciana v Commission, by which the Court dismissed as manifestly inadmissible the appellant's application to annul Commission Decision C(2005) 1867 final of 27 June 2005 concerning the reduction of the financial assistance initially granted from the Cohesion Fund to Project Group No 97/11/61/028, concerning the collection and treatment of waste waters on the Mediterranean coast of the Comunidad Autónoma de Valencia (Spain) — Representation by a lawyer — Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               The Comunidad Autónoma de Valencia — Generalidad Valenciana is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 261, 28.10.2006.


title: Case T-479/16: Judgment of the General Court of 28 June 2017 — Colgate-Palmolive v EUIPO (AROMASENSATIONS) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark AROMASENSATIONS — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               21.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 277/44

         Judgment of the General Court of 28 June 2017 — Colgate-Palmolive v EUIPO (AROMASENSATIONS)
   (Case T-479/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark AROMASENSATIONS - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 277/65)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Colgate-Palmolive Co. (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: M. Zintler and A. Stolz, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral and M. Simandlova, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 June 2016 (Case R 2482/2015-2), concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign AROMASENSATIONS as an EU trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Colgate-Palmolive Co. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 383, 17.10.2016.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 April 2005 in Case C-157/04: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Waste management — Directives 75/442/EEC, 91/689/EEC and 1999/31/EC — Landfills at Punta de Avalos and Olvera)

text:
               9.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/4

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 28 April 2005
   in Case C-157/04: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (1)

   (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Waste management - Directives 75/442/EEC, 91/689/EEC and 1999/31/EC - Landfills at Punta de Avalos and Olvera)
   (2005/C 171/08)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   In Case C-157/04, Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Valero Jordana and M. Konstantinidis) v Kingdom of Spain (Agent: L. Fraguas Gadea) — Action for failure to fulfil obligations under Article 226 EC, brought on 29 March 2004 — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. Silva de Lapuerta, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann and J. Klučka (Rapporteur), Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 28 April 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to ensure the application of Articles 4, 8, 9 and 13 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991, Article 2 of Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on hazardous waste, and Article 14 of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under those directives with respect to the uncontrolled landfill in the Punta de Avalos area of the island of Gomera (Autonomous Community of the Canary Islands).

               2.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to ensure the application of Articles 4, 8, 9 and 13 of Directive 75/442, as amended by Directive 91/156, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive with respect to the uncontrolled landfill in Olvera, Province of Cadiz (Autonomous Community of Andalusia).

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 106 of 30.04.2004.


               16.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 216/12

         Action brought on 17 December 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland
   (Case E-34/15)
   (2016/C 216/09)
   An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 17 December 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Carsten Zatschler, Øyvind Bø and Íris Ísberg, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35 Rue Belliard, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.
   The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

               1.

               Declare that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at point 1a of Chapter XXIV of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, (Commission Directive 2012/46/EU of 6 December 2012 amending Directive 97/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to measures against the emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants from internal combustion engines to be installed in non-road mobile machinery), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed, or in any event by failing to inform the EFTA Surveillance Authority thereof.

               2.

               Order Iceland to bear the costs of these proceedings.

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

               —

               The application addresses Iceland’s failure to comply, no later than 13 July 2015, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 13 May 2015 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order Commission Directive 2012/46/EU of 6 December 2012 amending Directive 97/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to measures against the emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants from internal combustion engines to be installed in non-road mobile machinery, as referred to at point 1a of Chapter XXIV of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and as adapted to that Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto (‘the Act’).

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.


title: Action brought on 15 July 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany (Case C-259/98)

text:
C 278/26             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     5.9.98
European Communities was brought before the Court                       placed in the institution and, as was argued at the oral
of Justice of the European Communities on 15 July                       hearing, the prejudice caused to the appellant's sexual
1998 by Arnaldo Lucaccioni, represented by Georges                      circumstances and to his enjoyment of life. That
Vandersanden, Laure Levi and O. Eben, of the Brussels                   damage is unconnected with the compensation for
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                   physical defects' which is covered by Article 14 of the
offices of Fiduciaire Myson, 30 rue de Cessange.                        Rules on the insurance of officials against the risk of
                                                                        accident and of occupational disease.
The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                    Ð The Court of First Instance took it upon itself, without
Ð set aside the judgment delivered on 14 May 1998
                                                                        stating any appropriate reasons therefor, to include the
    by the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                        material and non-material loss suffered by the
    Communities in Case T-165/95 (1), in which it rejected
                                                                        appellant in the capital sum paid to him under the
    the appellant's claims as to their substance,
                                                                        social security scheme of Community officials.
Ð consequently, allow the claims advanced by the
    appellant in the proceedings at first instance, apart           Ð The Court of First Instance failed to penalise the delay
    from his application for compensation for material                  in dealing with the matter by awarding default
    damage in the sum of BEF 12 500 000 corresponding                   interest.
    to the material loss arising from certain sales of
    immovable property,
                                                                    (1) OJ C 209, 4.7.1998, p. 37.
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Ð Infringement of Community law.
                                                                    Action brought on 15 July 1998 by the Commission of the
Ð Although the Court of First Instance acknowledged                 European Communities against the Federal Republic of
    that a compensation scheme based on the ordinary                                            Germany
    law relating to liability may coexist with the scheme
                                                                                (Case C-259/98)
    recognised by the Staff Regulations of officials of the
    European Communities, providing for the award of                                        (98/C 278/47)
    lump-sum compensation by the social security system,
    it omitted to consider the factors giving rise to liability
    under the ordinary law, as incurred by the
                                                                    An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
    Commission, namely: fault, damage and the
                                                                    brought before the Court of Justice of the European
    relationship of cause and effect existing as between the
                                                                    Communities on 15 July 1998 by the Commission of the
    fault and the damage.
                                                                    European Communities, represented by Michael Niejahr
                                                                    and Bernard Mongin, of its Legal Service, with an address
Ð The Court of First Instance failed to carry out a                 for service at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
    correct assessment of the material and non-material             Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.
    damage suffered by the appellant.
    Contrary to the findings of the Court of First Instance,        The applicant claims that the Court should:
    the lump-sum capital amount which is guaranteed by
    the Staff Regulations and paid under the insurance
    scheme entered into by the Commission Ð to which                Ð declare that, by imposing, for Community nationals
    officials pay contributions Ð cannot include                        who hold a diploma not obtained in Germany
    compensation for material damage equivalent to the                  qualifying them to carry on the profession of dental
    difference between an invalidity pension and the salary             practitioner in accordance with Council Directives 78/
    of an official.                                                     686/EEC (1) and 78/687/EEC (2), an obligatory
                                                                        introductory course as a specific requirement in order
    The non-material damage pleaded by the appellant                    for them to become eligible for appointment as a
    concerns all of the following: the physical and                     dental practitioner of a social security scheme
    professional damage suffered by him, the daily distress             practising independently in Germany, the Federal
    arising from his having had to work for 20 years in an              Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations
    environment which was dangerous to his health and                   under those Directives, in particular under Article 20
    resulting from his illness and future developments                  of Directive 78/686/EEC and Article 5 of Directive 78/
    relating thereto (recurrence and premature death), his              687/EEC,
    physical sufferings due to the illness and the
    consequences of surgical operations, the absence of
    any acknowledgement by the Commission of its                    Ð order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the
    liability and its failure to have regard to the trust               costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 5.9.98                EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 278/27
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                Article 7 of the Directive. However, the Commission
                                                                   also points out that the national decision to adopt an
                                                                   integrated strategy to combat pollution rather than
Under Article 20 of Directive 78/686/EEC, Member States            evaluating the situation substance by substance makes it
which require their own nationals to complete a                    difficult to verify whether Article 7 is being complied
preparatory training period in order to become eligible for        with, in particular as regards the 99 priority substances, if
appointment as a dental practitioner of a social security          the information forwarded to the Commission is not set
scheme could, for a period of eight years following                out in an orderly and transparent or at least non-
notification of the Directive, impose a training period of a       contradictory fashion.
maximum of six months on nationals of other Member
States. That eight-year period expired on 28 July 1986.
However, under Article 17 of the Zulassungsordnung für             In any event, the Commission has reason to conclude that
Vertragszahnärzte (Rules on Admission for Appointed                the Portuguese Republic has not completed identification
Dental Practitioners) the German authorities require               of the substances existing in Portugal which appear on
applicants from other Member States to attend one or               the list of 99 substances and, in relation to those which
three-day courses, in which linguistic proficiency and             it has identified, it has not adopted genuine reduction
knowledge of German social security law are also tested.           programmes and has only partially set quality objectives.
                                                                   In that respect, the Commission considers that the few
(1) OJ L 233, 24.8.1978, p. 1.                                     voluntary agreements with some industrial sectors are
(2) OJ L 233, 24.8.1978, p. 10.                                    not binding and cannot in any event be regarded as
                                                                   programmes within the meaning of Article 7 of the
                                                                   Directive. But even if they were, they do not cover all the
                                                                   industrial sectors and still less do they reduce pollution
                                                                   deriving from various sources.
Action brought on 17 July 1998 by the Commission of the            In addition, as far as the plans for de-pollution of the
  European Communities against the Portuguese Republic             River A Â gueda, Bacia do Guadiana and Bacia de Alcanena
                       (Case C-261/98)                             are concerned, although they may contribute to improving
                                                                   water quality, they do not constitute, from the point of
                        (98/C 278/48)                              view either of geographical cover or of content, timetabled
                                                                   programmes for the reduction of pollution from the 99
                                                                   priority substances, with clear quality objectives and
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought              emission standards.
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
on 17 July 1998 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Francisco de Sousa Fialho,             (1) OJ L 129, 18.5.1976, p. 23.
of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
Cruz, also of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:
                                                                   Action brought on 17 July 1998 by the Commission of the
                                                                     European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium
Ð declare that, by failing to adopt and/or communicate
    to the Commission summaries of the programmes for                                     (Case C-262/98)
    the reduction of pollution incorporating quality
    objectives and the corresponding results in respect of                                 (98/C 278/49)
    the 99 priority substances mentioned in the first indent
    of List II in the Annex to Council Directive 76/464/
    EEC of 4 May 1976 on pollution caused by certain               An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
    dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic               before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
    environment of the Community (1), the Portuguese               on 17 July 1998 by the Commission of the European
    Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under            Communities, represented by Frank Benyon, Legal
    Article 7 of that Directive and the third paragraph of         Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
    Article 189 of the EC Treaty,                                  Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
                                                                   Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Ð order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                   The Commission of the European Communities claims
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                that the Court should:
The Commission recognises that the Portuguese                      Ð declare that, by failing to communicate the laws,
authorities have been making efforts to comply with                     regulations and administrative measures necessary in


title: Case T-681/13: Order of the General Court of 26 February 2016 — Colomer Italy v OHIM — Farmaca International (INTERCOSMO ESTRO) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the application for registration — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               25.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/28

         Order of the General Court of 26 February 2016 — Colomer Italy v OHIM — Farmaca International (INTERCOSMO ESTRO)
   (Case T-681/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the application for registration - No need to adjudicate))
   (2016/C 145/35)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Colomer Italy SpA (Sala Bolognese, Italy) (represented by: M. Ricolfi, F. Tarocco and C. Mezzetti, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Bullock and N. Bambara, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Farmaca International SpA (Torino, Italy) (represented by: M. Caramelli and S. Fierro, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 October 2013 (Case R 1186/2012-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Farmaca International SpA and Colomer Italy SpA.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               Colomer Italy SpA and Farmaca International SpA are ordered to bear their own costs and, each of them, half of the costs of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

      (1)  OJ C 78, 15.3.2014.


title: Case T-781/14: Action brought on 20 November 2014 — TVR Automotive v OHIM — Cardoni (TVR ENGINEERING)

text:
               26.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/42

         Action brought on 20 November 2014 — TVR Automotive v OHIM — Cardoni (TVR ENGINEERING)
   (Case T-781/14)
   (2015/C 026/54)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: TVR Automotive Ltd (Whiteley, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl, and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fabio Cardoni (Milan, Italy)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: Application for registration No 1 1 1 32  602

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 September 2014 in Case R 2532/2013-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM and Mr Cardoni, if he should intervene in these proceedings, to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case F-152/15: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 10 March 2016 — Kozak v Commission (Civil service — Open Competition EPSO/AD/293/14 — Decision of the selection board not to admit a candidate to sit tests at the assessment centre — Request for review — New decision of the selection board confirming its initial decision — Communication by EPSO of a reasoned reply — Purely confirmatory act — Time-limit for bringing proceedings — Manifest inadmissibility — Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure)

text:
               25.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/37

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 10 March 2016 — Kozak v Commission
   (Case F-152/15)
   ((Civil service - Open Competition EPSO/AD/293/14 - Decision of the selection board not to admit a candidate to sit tests at the assessment centre - Request for review - New decision of the selection board confirming its initial decision - Communication by EPSO of a reasoned reply - Purely confirmatory act - Time-limit for bringing proceedings - Manifest inadmissibility - Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure))
   (2016/C 145/44)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Małgorzata Kozak (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: J. Łojkowska-Paprocka, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision of EPSO not to admit the applicant to the assessment stage of Competition EPSO/AD/293/14.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               Ms Kozak is to bear her own costs.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 8 June 2005 in Case T-297/03 Tomasetto Achille Sas di Tomasetto Andrea & C. v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — No disclosure of a document originating from a Member State without the prior consent of that State)

text:
               17.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 229/19

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 8 June 2005
   in Case T-297/03 Tomasetto Achille Sas di Tomasetto Andrea & C. v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Action for annulment - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - No disclosure of a document originating from a Member State without the prior consent of that State)
   (2005/C 229/41)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case T-297/03: Tomasetto Achille Sas di Tomasetto Andrea & C., established in Castegnero (Italy), represented by M. Calabrese, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communities (agents: V. Di Bucci and P. Aalto, with A. Abate, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for annulment of the Commission's decision refusing the applicant access to certain documents relating to a State aid scheme declared compatible with the common market by Commission decision of 12 July 2000 (SG (2000) D/105754 — State Aid N 715/99) — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of M. Vilaras, President, F. Dehousse and D. Sváby, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 8 June 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The action is dismissed;

               2.

               Each party is to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 264 of 1.11.2003.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 December 1999 in Case T-299/97: Vicente Alonso Morales v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Action for annulment — Conditions of admission to a competition — University studies certified by a diploma — Technical science studies in Spain)

text:
5.2.2000               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 34/21
                                                       COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
             Assignment of Judges to Chambers                           cation for annulment of the decision of 1 October 1997 of
                                                                        the selection board for general competition COM/A/1047
                         (2000/C 34/39)                                 rejecting the applicant’s candidature for that competition —
                                                                        the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of:
                                                                        A. Potocki, President, C.W. Bellamy and A.W.H. Meij, Judges;
At its plenary meeting on 13 January 2000 the Court of First            J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a
Instance decided, pursuant to Article 2(4) of the Council               judgment on 9 December 1999, the operative part of which is
Decision of 24 October 1988 and Article 10 of the Rules of              as follows:
Procedure of the Court of First Instance, in respect of the period
ending on 30 September 2000, to assign Judge Forwood to
the First Chamber, to the First Chamber, Extended Compo-                1. The decision of 1 October 1997 of the selection board for general
sition, and to the Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition.                      competition COM/A/1047 rejecting the applicant’s candidature
                                                                             for that competition is annulled.
Consequently, the composition of the Chambers as decided on
6 July 1999 (OJ C 226 of 7 August 1999, p. 28) is modified              2. The Commission shall bear its own costs and pay all the
as follows:                                                                  applicant’s costs.
First Chamber
                                                                        (1) OJ C 41 of 7.2.1998.
Mr Vesterdorf (President of the Chamber), Mr Vilaras and
Mr Forwood, Judges;
First Chamber, Extended Composition
Mr Vesterdorf (President of the Chamber), Mr Potocki, Mr Meij,
Mr Vilaras and Mr Forwood, Judges;
                                                                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition
                                                                                (single Judge)
Mr Garcı́a-Valdecasas (President of the Chamber), Ms Lindh,
Mr Cooke, Mr Vilaras and Mr Forwood, Judges.
                                                                                of 9 December 1999
                                                                        in Case T-53/99: Nicolaos Progoulis v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   (Staff case — Staff report — Description of duties)
                      of 9 December 1999                                                           (2000/C 34/41)
in Case T-299/97: Vicente Alonso Morales v Commission
              of the European Communities (1)                                               (Language of the case: English)
(Officials — Action for annulment — Conditions of admis-
sion to a competition — University studies certified by a               In Case T-53/99: Nicolaos Progoulis, an official of the Com-
        diploma — Technical science studies in Spain)                   mission of the European Communities, represented by Vassi-
                                                                        lios Akritidis, of the Athens Bar, and Jonathan Branton,
                                                                        Solicitor, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                         (2000/C 34/40)                                 Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8-10, Rue Mathias Hardt, against
                                                                        Commission of the European Communities (Agent: Julian
                                                                        Currall) — application for the annulment of the decision of
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)                       the appointing authority of 17 November 1998 rejecting the
                                                                        applicant’s complaint of 9 June 1998 in which the applicant
In Case T-299/97: Vicente Alonso Morales, represented by                sought the amendment of his staff report for the period 1 July
Ramón Marés Salvador, of the Madrid Bar, of 136-1o Doctor              1995 to 30 June 1997, an order requiring the Commission to
Esquerdo, Madrid, v Commission of the European Communi-                 rectify the assessments of the applicant and to amend the
ties (Agents: Julian Currall and José Rivas Andrés) — appli-            description of duties given at paragraph 3(b) of the report as


title: Case C-603/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 10 December 2015 — El Corte Inglés, SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Application for the word mark The English Cut — Opposition by the proprietor of the national and Community word and figurative marks including the word elements ‘El Corte Inglés’ — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(1)(b) — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(5) — Risk that the relevant public will make a connection with a trade mark which has a reputation — Degree of similarity required)

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/6

         Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 10 December 2015 — El Corte Inglés, SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-603/14 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Community trade mark - Application for the word mark The English Cut - Opposition by the proprietor of the national and Community word and figurative marks including the word elements ‘El Corte Inglés’ - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 8(1)(b) - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(5) - Risk that the relevant public will make a connection with a trade mark which has a reputation - Degree of similarity required))
   (2016/C 048/08)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: El Corte Inglés, SA (represented by: J. Rivas Zurdo, abogado)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 15 October 2014 in El Corte Inglés v OHIM — English Cut (The English Cut) (T-515/12, EU:T:2014:882) in so far as it was held in that judgment that it was apparent from the fact that the degree of similarity between the signs at issue was not sufficient to result in the application of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark that the conditions for the application of Article 8(5) of that regulation were therefore also not satisfied in the present case;

               2.

               Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder;

               3.

               Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union;

               4.

               Reserves the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 107, 30.3.2015.


title: Case T-477/09: Action brought on 30 November 2009 — ATB Norte v OHIM — Bricocenter Italia (BRICO CENTER)

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/66

         Action brought on 30 November 2009 — ATB Norte v OHIM — Bricocenter Italia (BRICO CENTER)
   (Case T-477/09)
   2010/C 24/116
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: ATB Norte, SL (Burgos, Spain) (represented by: P. López Ronda, G. Macías Bonilla, H.L. Curtis-Oliver and G. Marín Raigal, 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: Bricocenter Italia Srl (Rozzano Milanofiori (Milan), Italy)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 September 2009 — R 1008/2008-4.

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Bricocenter S.r.l.

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark containing the word element ‘BRICOCENTER’ (Application No 4 934 121) in respect of services in Class 35.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: ATB Norte, SL.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative Community trade marks containing the word elements ‘CENTROS DE BRICOLAGE BRICOCENTRO’ (No 3 262 623) and ‘ATB CENTROS DE BRICOLAGE BRICOCENTRO’ (No 989 046) in respect of services in Classes 35, 37 and 39.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Opposition Division’s decision annulled and the opposition rejected in its entirety.

      Pleas in law: Incorrect interpretation and application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-20/10: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 November 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Trani — Italy) — Vino Cosimo Damiano v Poste Italiane SpA (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Social policy — Directive 1999/70/EC — Clauses 3 and 8 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work — Fixed-term employment contracts in the public sector — First or single use of a contract — Obligation to state the objective reasons — Elimination — Reduction in the general level of protection of employees — Principle of non-discrimination — Articles 82 EC and 86 EC)

text:
               26.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/14

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 November 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Trani — Italy) — Vino Cosimo Damiano v Poste Italiane SpA
   (Case C-20/10) (1)

   (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Social policy - Directive 1999/70/EC - Clauses 3 and 8 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work - Fixed-term employment contracts in the public sector - First or single use of a contract - Obligation to state the objective reasons - Elimination - Reduction in the general level of protection of employees - Principle of non-discrimination - Articles 82 EC and 86 EC)
   2011/C 63/26
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Trani

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Vino Cosimo Damiano

      Defendant: Poste Italiane SpA

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale di Trani — Interpretation of Clauses 3 and 8(3) of the Annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p.43) — Compatibility of an internal rule validating in the internal legal an ‘acausal’ case for the engagement of workers by Poste Italiane SpA on fixed-term contracts

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               Clause 8(3) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, which is annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that provided for by Article 2(1)(a) of Legislative Decree No 368 implementing Directive 1999/70/EC concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP of 6 September 2001 (decreto legislativo n. 368, attuazione della direttiva 1999/70/CE relativa all’accordo quadro sul lavoro a tempo determinato concluso dall’UNICE, dal CEEP e dal CES), which, unlike the national rules applicable before the entry into force of that decree, allows a company such as Poste Italiane SpA, to conclude, subject to certain conditions, a first or single use of a fixed-term contracts with a worker, such as Mr Vino, without having to state the objective reasons which justify the use of a contract concluded for such a duration, since that legislation is not connected to the implementation of the Framework Agreement. It is in that regard, in principle, irrelevant whether the objective pursued by that legislation provides protection at least equivalent to the protection of fixed-term workers referred to in the Framework Agreement.

               2.

               The Court of Justice of the European Union manifestly lacks jurisdiction to reply to the fourth question referred for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal di Trani (Italy).

               3.

               The fifth question referred for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal di Trani is manifestly inadmissible.

      (1)  OJ C 134, 22.5.2010.


title: Case C-356/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio (Italy) lodged on 31 July 2007 — Bayer SpA v Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA) and Ministero della Salute

text:
               20.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio (Italy) lodged on 31 July 2007 — Bayer SpA v Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA) and Ministero della Salute
   (Case C-356/07)
   (2007/C 247/14)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio (Italy)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Bayer SpA

      Defendants: Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA) and Ministero della Salute
   Questions referred

               1.

               After the provisions contained in Articles 2 and 3 (1) [of Directive 89/105/EC] which modulate the relationship between the public authorities of a Member State and the pharmaceutical companies — by allowing the pricing of a medicinal product or the raising of its price to be determined on the basis of information provided by the [latter], but only in so far as is acceptable to the competent authority, and thus on the basis of dialogue between the undertakings themselves and the authorities competent to supervise pharmaceutical expenditure — Article 4(1) [of that Directive] concerning ‘price freeze[s] imposed on all medicinal products or on certain categories of medicinal products’ characterises a price freeze as a general instrument, the continuing use of which is conditional upon a review which must be carried out, at least once a year, with reference to the macro-economic conditions existing in the Member State in question.
               That provision allows the competent authorities a period of 90 days in which to take a final decision, requiring them, on expiry of that period, to announce what increases or decreases in prices are being made, if any.
               On a proper construction of the reference to ‘decreases in prices … being made, if any’, is that provision to be interpreted as meaning that, as well as the general remedy of freezing the prices of all categories, or certain specific categories, of medicinal product, another general remedy may be applied in the form of a reduction in the prices of all categories, and of certain specific categories, of medicinal product, or must ‘decreases …, if any’ be interpreted as referring exclusively to the medicinal products which are already subject to the price freeze?

               2.

               In requiring the competent authorities of a Member State to verify, at least once a year, in the case of price freezes, whether the macroeconomic conditions justify continuing that price freeze, may Article 4(1) [of Directive 89/105/EC] be interpreted as meaning that, if the reply to Question I is that a price reduction is permissible, it is possible to have recourse to such a measure even more than once in the course of a single year, and to do that again for many years (from 2002 until 2010)?

               3.

               Under the terms of Article 4 [of Directive 89/105/EC] — read in the light of the preamble emphasising that the principal aim of measures controlling the prices of medicinal products is ‘the promotion of public health by ensuring the availability of adequate supplies of medicinal products at a reasonable cost’ and preventing‘disparities in such measures [which] may hinder or distort intra-Community trade in medicinal products’ — is it compatible with the Community rules to adopt measures which refer to economic values attributed to that expenditure on the basis of ‘predictions’ rather than values which have been ‘ascertained’ (this question relates to both situations)?

               4.

               Must the requirements relating to compliance with the ceilings for pharmaceutical expenditure which each Member State is competent to determine be linked, point by point, to pharmaceutical expenditure alone, or is it within the powers of the Member States to take account also of data relating to other health expenditure?

               5.

               Must the principles, to be inferred from … Directive [89/105/EC], of transparency and of shared participation on the part of the undertakings with an interest in measures freezing the prices of pharmaceutical products or reducing them across the board be interpreted as requiring provision to be made, always and in any circumstances, for the possibility of derogation from the price imposed (Article 4(2) [of Directive 89/105/EC]) and for genuine participation by the applicant company, with the consequent need for the administrative authorities to state the reasons for any refusal?

      (1)  Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December 1988 relating to the transparency of measures regulating the pricing of medicinal products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of national health insurance systems (OJ L 40, 11.2.1989, p. 8).


title: Case C-481/07 P: Appeal brought on 2 November 2007 by SELEX Sistemi Integrati SpA, formerly Alenia Marconi Systems SpA, against the order of 29 August 2007 of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) in Case T-186/05 SELEX Sistemi Integrati SpA v Commision of the European Communities

text:
               9.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/2

         Appeal brought on 2 November 2007 by SELEX Sistemi Integrati SpA, formerly Alenia Marconi Systems SpA, against the order of 29 August 2007 of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) in Case T-186/05 SELEX Sistemi Integrati SpA v Commision of the European Communities

   (Case C-481/07 P)
   (2008/C 37/02)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Appellant: SELEX Sistemi Integrati SpA, formerly Alenia Marconi Systems SpA (represented by: F. Sciaudone, R. Sciaudone and A. Neri, avvocati)

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

               —

               set aside the order of the Court of First Instance of 29 August 2007 in Case T-186/05, and refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for adjudication on the substance in the light of any guidance which it may please the Court of Justice to provide;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs incurred in the present proceedings, together with those incurred in Case T-186/05.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of its claims, the appellant alleges that:

               (a)

               the legal expenses incurred in Case T-155/04 were wrongly excluded from the ambit of recoverable loss. In the appellant's submission, the Court of First Instance erred as follows:

                           —

                           it wrongly characterised the action for damages as an attempt ‘to overturn the order for costs in the judgment’ in Case T-155/04;

                           —

                           it misconstrued Article 87 et seq of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance in relation to the principles relating to compensation for loss;

                           —

                           it held, wrongly, that Montorio was applicable to the case before it;

               (b)

               the Court of First Instance erred in excluding from the ambit of recoverable loss the legal costs incurred in the administrative pre-litigation procedure. In the appellant's submission, that error consists in interpreting and applying Article 87 et seq of the Rules of Procedure to an individual action for damages, which is completely outside the scope of those provisions;

               (c)

               the clear sense of the evidence adduced by the appellant was distorted. The Court of First Instance did not correctly analyse the documentation produced by the applicant in Case T-186/05 or the annexes thereto;

               (d)

               the grounds stated are illogical and contradictory, and the Community case-law on damages was flouted. The Court of First Instance did not correctly apply the principles set out in Joined Cases C-104/89 and C-37/90 Mulder
                   (1) and Case C-243/05 P Agraz
                   (2);

               (e)

               Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance was infringed. In the appellant's submission, the correct interpretation of that provision does not require that the application must ‘necessarily’ contain the evidence; on the contrary, that provision is based on the concept of ‘possibility’, that is to say, it requires the party to provide evidence only when that is possible;

               (f)

               the reasons stated are inadequate as regards the issue of compensation for the damage suffered by the appellant as a result of the infringement of the principle that the administrative procedure must be of reasonable duration. The Court of First Instance did not, in fact, state the grounds for its rejection of the claim for compensation in relation to the specific infringement alleged by the appellant;

               (g)

               the clear sense of the arguments and the evidence was distorted, and the reasoning is illogical and inconsistent with the Community case-law on compensation for non-material damage. For the purposes of rejecting the claim for damages in relation to breach of the principle that the administrative procedure must be of reasonable duration or of the Commission's duty of vigilance, the Court of First Instance was not entitled to use the arguments exclusively concerning exclusion from the public procurement procedures or failure to award a public supply contract.

      (1)  [2000] ECR I-203.

      (2)  [2006] ECR I-10833.


title: Case C-429/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 July 2013 — Gosselin Group NV v European Commission, Stichting Administratiekantoor Portielje (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — International removal services market in Belgium — Direct or indirect fixing of prices, market-sharing and the manipulation of the procedure for the submission of tenders — Classification — Infringement of competition by object — Obligation to state reasons — Guidelines on the effect on trade between Member States — Legal force — Obligation to define the relevant market — Scope — Guidelines on the method of setting fines (2006) — Proportion of the value of sales — Gravity of the infringement — Mitigating circumstances — Obligation to state reasons — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 25 — Limitation period — Repeated infringment)

text:
               31.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/8

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 July 2013 — Gosselin Group NV v European Commission, Stichting Administratiekantoor Portielje
   (Case C-429/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - International removal services market in Belgium - Direct or indirect fixing of prices, market-sharing and the manipulation of the procedure for the submission of tenders - Classification - Infringement of competition by object - Obligation to state reasons - Guidelines on the effect on trade between Member States - Legal force - Obligation to define the relevant market - Scope - Guidelines on the method of setting fines (2006) - Proportion of the value of sales - Gravity of the infringement - Mitigating circumstances - Obligation to state reasons - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 25 - Limitation period - Repeated infringment)
   2013/C 252/11
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Appellant: Gosselin Group NV (represented by: F. Wijckmans, H. Burez and S. De Keer, avocaten)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet, F. Ronkes Agerbeek, Agents), Stichting Administratiekantoor Portielje

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 June 2011 in Case T-208/08 Gosselin Group v Commission and Case T-209/08 Stichting Administratiekantoor Portielje, by which the General Court, in Case T-208/08, annulled Commission Decision C(2008) 926 final of 11 March 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.543 — International Removal Services), in so far as that decision finds that Gosselin Group NV participated in an infringement of Article 81(1) EC from 30 October 1993 to 14 November 1996 and, in Case T-209/08, annulled Decision C(2008) 926, as amended by Decision C(2009) 5810, in so far as it relates to Stichting Administratiekantoor Portielje

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Gosselin Group NV to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 331, 12.11.2011.


title: Case C-100/12: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 4 July 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte — Italy) — Fastweb SpA v Azienda Sanitaria Locale di Alessandria (Public procurement — Directive 89/665/EEC — Public procurement review — Action brought by an unsuccessful tenderer for review of a decision awarding a contract — Action for review based on the ground that the bid selected did not meet the technical specifications for the contract — Counterclaim made by the successful tenderer alleging that certain technical specifications for the contract were not respected in the bid submitted by the tenderer seeking review — Neither of those bids in compliance with the technical specifications for the contract — National case-law requiring that the counterclaim be examined first and, where such a counterclaim proves well founded, that the main action be declared inadmissible without any consideration of its merits — Whether compatible with European Union law)

text:
               24.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/3

         Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 4 July 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte — Italy) — Fastweb SpA v Azienda Sanitaria Locale di Alessandria
   (Case C-100/12) (1)

   (Public procurement - Directive 89/665/EEC - Public procurement review - Action brought by an unsuccessful tenderer for review of a decision awarding a contract - Action for review based on the ground that the bid selected did not meet the technical specifications for the contract - Counterclaim made by the successful tenderer alleging that certain technical specifications for the contract were not respected in the bid submitted by the tenderer seeking review - Neither of those bids in compliance with the technical specifications for the contract - National case-law requiring that the counterclaim be examined first and, where such a counterclaim proves well founded, that the main action be declared inadmissible without any consideration of its merits - Whether compatible with European Union law)
   2013/C 245/05
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Fastweb SpA

      Defendant: Azienda Sanitaria Locale di Alessandria

      Intervening parties: Telecom Italia SpA, Path-Net SpA

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte — Interpretation 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 Directive 2007/66/EC (OJ 2007 L 335, p. 31) — Principles of equal treatment, non-discrimination and protection of competition — Rule laid down in the national case-law under which the national court before which an action is brought for annulment of the act awarding a public procurement contract, as well as a counterclaim seeking to challenge the legitimacy of the participation in the tendering procedure of the unsuccessful tenderer (which is also the applicant in the main action), may rule on the merits of the main action only if the counterclaim proves to be unfounded — A restricted call for tenders, with only two tenderers, neither of which submitted a bid which was admissible

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 1(3) 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 Directive 2007/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007, must be interpreted to the effect that, if, in review proceedings, the successful tenderer — having won the contract and filed a counterclaim — raises a preliminary plea of inadmissibility on the grounds that the tenderer seeking review lacks standing to challenge the award because its bid should have been rejected by the contracting authority by reason of its non-conformity with the technical requirements under the tender specifications, that provision precludes that action for review from being declared inadmissible as a consequence of the examination of that preliminary plea in the absence of a finding as to whether those technical requirements are met both by the bid submitted by the successful tenderer, which won the contract, and by the bid submitted by the tenderer which brought the main action for review.

      (1)  OJ C 151, 26.5.2012.


title: Case C-26/16: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 14 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) — Portugal) — Santogal M-Comércio e Reparação de Automóveis Lda v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 138(2)(a) — Conditions for the grant of the exemption for an intra-Community supply of a new means of transport — Purchaser’s residence in the Member State of destination — Temporary registration in the Member State of destination — Risk of tax evasion — Good faith of the vendor — Obligation of diligence on the part of the vendor)

text:
               21.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 277/12

         Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 14 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) — Portugal) — Santogal M-Comércio e Reparação de Automóveis Lda v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira
   (Case C-26/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 138(2)(a) - Conditions for the grant of the exemption for an intra-Community supply of a new means of transport - Purchaser’s residence in the Member State of destination - Temporary registration in the Member State of destination - Risk of tax evasion - Good faith of the vendor - Obligation of diligence on the part of the vendor))
   (2017/C 277/16)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Santogal M-Comércio e Reparação de Automóveis Lda

      Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 138(2)(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax precludes national provisions from making the benefit of the exemption of an intra-Community supply of a new means of transport subject to the requirement that the purchaser of that means of transport must be established or domiciled in the Member State of destination of that means of transport.

               2.

               Article 138(2)(a) of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that the exemption of a supply of a new means of transport cannot be refused in the Member State of supply on the sole ground that that means of transport has been registered only temporarily in the Member State of destination.

               3.

               Article 138(2)(a) of Directive 2006/112 precludes the vendor of a new means of transport, transported by the purchaser to another Member State and registered in that latter State temporarily, from being required to pay value added tax at a later stage when it is not established that the temporary registration regime has ended and value added tax has or will be paid in the Member State of destination.

               4.

               Article 138(2)(a) of Directive 2006/112 as well as the principles of legal certainty, proportionality and protection of legitimate expectations preclude the vendor of a new means of transport, transported by the purchaser to another Member State and registered on a temporary basis in that State, from being required to pay value added tax at a later stage in the event of tax evasion by the purchaser, unless it has been established, in the light of objective evidence, that that vendor knew or ought to have known that the transaction was part of a fraud committed by the purchaser and he did not take all reasonable steps within his power to avoid his participation in that fraud. It is for the referring court to verify whether this is the case on the basis of an overall assessment of all the evidence and circumstances of the case in the main proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 136, 18.4.2016.


title: Case C-420/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht (Germany) lodged on 24 July 2013 — Netto Marken Discount AG & Co. KG v Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt

text:
               26.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/8

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht (Germany) lodged on 24 July 2013 — Netto Marken Discount AG & Co. KG v Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt
   (Case C-420/13)
   2013/C 313/14
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundespatentgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Netto Marken Discount AG & Co. KG

      Defendant: Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 2 of the directive (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a service within the meaning of this provision also encompasses retail trading in services?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative:
               Is Article 2 of the directive to be interpreted as meaning that the content of the services offered by the retailer must be specified in exactly the same way as the goods that a retailer markets?

                           (a)

                           Does it suffice for the purposes of specification of the services if

                                       (aa)

                                       just the field of services in general or general indications,

                                       (bb)

                                       just the class(es) or

                                       (cc)

                                       each specific individual service

                                 is stated?

                           (b)

                           Do these details then take part in determining the date of filing or is it possible, where general indications or classes are stated, to make substitutions or additions?

               3.

               If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative:
               Is Article 2 of the directive to be interpreted as meaning that the scope of trade mark protection afforded to retail services extends even to services rendered by the retailer himself?

      (1)  Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 2008 L 299, p. 25).


title: Case C-332/05: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 January 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundessozialgericht (Germany)) — Aldo Celozzi v Innungskrankenkasse Baden-Württemberg (Freedom of movement for workers — Calculation of daily sick pay based on net income, itself determined by tax class — Automatic placing of a migrant worker whose spouse is resident in another Member State in an unfavourable tax class — Amendment of the tax class only on application by the migrant worker — Failure to take into account a subsequent amendment of the tax class on the basis of the marital status of that worker — Principle of equal treatment — Infringement)

text:
               10.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/8

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 January 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundessozialgericht (Germany)) — Aldo Celozzi v Innungskrankenkasse Baden-Württemberg
   (Case C-332/05) (1)

   (Freedom of movement for workers - Calculation of daily sick pay based on net income, itself determined by tax class - Automatic placing of a migrant worker whose spouse is resident in another Member State in an unfavourable tax class - Amendment of the tax class only on application by the migrant worker - Failure to take into account a subsequent amendment of the tax class on the basis of the marital status of that worker - Principle of equal treatment - Infringement)
   (2007/C 56/12)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundessozialgericht (Germany)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Aldo Celozzi

      Defendant: Innungskrankenkasse Baden-Württemberg
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundessozialgericht — Interpretation of Article 39 EC, Articles 3(1) and 23(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ, English special edition 1971 (II), p. 416) and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (OJ, English special edition 1968 (II), p. 475) — National social security legislation — Indirect discrimination — Calculation of the daily rate of sick pay based on net income, itself determined by tax class — Refusal to take into account retroactively an amendment of the tax class after account was taken of the marital status of a migrant worker whose spouse is resident in another Member State
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 3(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, precludes the application of a daily sick pay scheme implemented by a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings:

               —

               under which a migrant worker, whose spouse resides in another Member State, is automatically placed in a tax class which is less favourable than that of a married national worker whose spouse resides in the Member State concerned and is not in paid employment, and

               —

               which does not allow account to be taken retroactively, as regards the amount of that sick pay, which is calculated according to net income, itself determined by tax class, of a subsequent correction of that class following an express application by the migrant worker based on his actual marital status.

      (1)  OJ C 281, 12.11.2005.


title: Case T-304/01: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 December 2006 — Julia Abad Pérez and Others v Council of the European Union (Common agricultural policy — Animal health — Bovine spongiform encephalopathy — Legislation relating to protection of animal health and public health — Action for damages — Non-contractual liability — Causal link — Formal defects — Association of traders — Inadmissibility)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/27

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 December 2006 — Julia Abad Pérez and Others v Council of the European Union
   (Case T-304/01) (1)

   (Common agricultural policy - Animal health - Bovine spongiform encephalopathy - Legislation relating to protection of animal health and public health - Action for damages - Non-contractual liability - Causal link - Formal defects - Association of traders - Inadmissibility)
   (2006/C 331/61)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicants: Julia Abad Pérez (El Barraco, Spain) and the 481 other applicants whose names are listed in the Annex to the present judgment, Confederación de Organizaciones de Agricultores y Ganaderos, established in Madrid, Spain) Unió de Pagesos (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: M. Roca Junyent, J. Roca Sagarra, M. Pons de Vall Alomar and E. Sagarra Trias, lawyers)

      Defendants: Council of the European Union (represented by: initially by J. Carbery and F. Florindo Gijón, and subsequently by F. Florindo Gijón and M. Balta, Agents) and Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Berscheid and S. Pardo Quintillán, Agents, assisted by J. Guerra Fernández, lawyer)
   Re:
   Action for damages pursuant to Article 235 EC and the second paragraph of Article 288 EC for reparation of the harm allegedly suffered by the applicants due to acts and omissions on the part of the Council and the Commission, following the appearance of the disease bovine spongiform encephalopathy in Spain
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action as inadmissible in so far as it concerns the Unió de Pagesos and la Confederación de Organizaciones de Agricultores y Ganaderos;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action as unfounded;

               3.

               Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council and the Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 56, 2.3.2002.


title: Case T-597/13: Action brought on 18 November 2013 — Calida v OHIM — Quanzhou Green Garments (dadida)

text:
               25.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/30

         Action brought on 18 November 2013 — Calida v OHIM — Quanzhou Green Garments (dadida)
   (Case T-597/13)
   2014/C 24/54
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Calida Holding AG (Sursee, Switzerland) (represented by: R. Kaase and H. Dirksmeier, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Quanzhou Green Garments Co. Ltd (Quanzhou, China)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 16 September 2013 given in Case R 1190/2012-4;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: International registration with effect in the European Union No 979 903 for the figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘dadida’ for goods in Class 25

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The other party before the Board of Appeal

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Relative grounds pursuant to Article 53(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) CTMR

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the request for a declaration of invalidity

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

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


title: Case T-704/16: Action brought on 26 September 2016 — Murka v EUIPO (SCATTER SLOTS)

text:
               5.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 454/28

      Action brought on 26 September 2016 — Murka v EUIPO (SCATTER SLOTS)
      (Case T-704/16)
      (2016/C 454/50)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Murka Ltd (Tortola, British Virgin Islands) (represented by: S. Santos Rodriguez, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘SCATTER SLOTS’ — Application for registration No 14 590 889

         Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 June 2016 in Case R 471/2016-1

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before EUIPO.

         Pleas in law

                  —

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

                  —

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

                  —

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