title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 9 October 1997 in Joined Cases C-31/96, C-32/96 and C-33/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad de Extremadura, Cáceres): Antonio Naranjo Arjona v. Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS), Francisco Vicente Mateos v. Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS), Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS), and Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS) v. Laura García Lázaro (Social security - Invalidity - Old-age pensions - Article 47 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Calculation of benefits)

text:
C 357/8                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    22 . 11 . 97
which accords with the provisions of Title II of that                 J. L. Murray and G. Hirsch, Judges; A. La Pergola,
Convention or with the provisions of a convention which               Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the
was in force between the two States concerned when the                Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 October 1997, in
proceedings were instituted, and must do so provisionally             which it:
if the court first seised has not yet ruled on whether it has
jurisdiction. On the other hand, the court second seised
must not apply Article 21 of the Convention on
Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil                1 . declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
and Commercial Matters if the court first seised has                       period the provisions necessary to implement
assumed jurisdiction on the basis of a rule which does not                 Articles 3, 4 and 5 of Council Directive 84/466/
accord with the provisions of Title II of that Convention                  Euratom of 3 September 1984 laying down basic
or with the provisions of a convention which was in force                  measures for the radiation protection of persons
between those two States when the proceedings were                         undergoing medical examination or treatment, the
instituted.                                                                Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                           under the Euratom Treaty;
(') OJ C 189, 22 . 7. 1995 .
                                                                      2 . orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
                                                                      (') OJ C 133 , 4 . 5 . 1996 .
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        ( Sixth Chamber)
                       of 9 October 1997
in    Case   C-21/96: Commission of the European                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
            Communities v. Kingdom of Spain (')
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
             Council Directive 84/466/Euratom)                                                 of 9 October 1997
                          ( 97/C 357/ 14                              in Joined Cases C-31/96, C-32/96 and C-33/96 (reference
                                                                      for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Jus
                                                                      ticia de la Comunidad de Extremadura, Cáceres ): Antonio
                                                                      Naranjo Arjona v. Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad
                (Language of the case: Spanish)                       Social (INSS ), Francisco Vicente Mateos v. Instituto Nacio
                                                                      nal de la Seguridad Social (INSS ), Tesorería General de la
                                                                      Seguridad Social (TGSS), and Instituto Nacional de la
                                                                           Seguridad Social (INSS ) v. Laura García Lázaro (')
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be        (Social security — Invalidity — Old-age pensions —
          published in the European Court Reports)                    Article 47 (1 ) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 —
                                                                                Calculation of benefits)
                                                                                ( 97/C 357/15 )
In Case C-21/96 : Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: Thomas F. Cusack and Isabel
Martinez del Peral ) v. Kingdom of Spain (Agents: Alberto
Jose Navarro Gonzalez and Rosario Silva de Lapuerta ) —                               (Language of the case: Spanish)
application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt the
laws, regulations or administrative provisions necessary to
comply with Articles 3, 4 and 5 of Council Directive 84/
466/Euratom of 3 September 1984 laying down basic
measures for the radiation protection of persons                        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
undergoing medical examination or treatment ( OJ L 265,                         published in the European Court Reports)
5 . 10 . 1984, p. 1 ) or by failing to inform the Commission
of the measures it has adopted for the transposition of the
Directive, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its
obligations under the Euratom Treaty — the Court ( Sixth              In Joined Cases C-31 /96, C-32/96 and C-33/96 : reference
Chamber), composed of: H. Ragnemalm, President of the                 to the Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the
Chamber, G. F. Mancini, P. J. G. Kapteyn ( Rapporteur),               Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad de Extre
 ---pagebreak--- 22. 11 . 97            1 EN 1            Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 357/9
madura, Caceres ( High Court of Justice of the Community                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
of Extremadura, Caceres) ( Spain ), for a preliminary ruling                                 ( Second Chamber)
in the proceedings pending before that court between
Antonio Naranjo Arjona and Instituto Nacional de la                                          of 9 October 1997
Seguridad Social (INSS ), Francisco Vicente Mateos and              in Case C-291/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS ), Tesoreria        the Amtsgericht Reutlingen): Criminal proceedings against
General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS ), and Instituto                           Martino Grado and Shahid Bashir ( ')
Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS ) and Laura Garcia
Lazaro — on the interpretation of Article 47 ( 1 ) of               (Preliminary reference — Criminal proceedings — Use of
Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971               a courtesy title — Discrimination — Relevance of the
on the application of social security schemes to employed                         question — Lack of jurisdiction)
persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their
                                                                                ( 97/C 357/16 )
families moving within the Community, as amended and
updated by Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2001/83 of
2 June 1983 ( OJ L 230, 22 . 8 . 1983 , p. 6 ) and as adapted                      (Language of the case: German)
by Annex I, Part VIII, of the Act concerning the
Conditions of Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the
Portuguese Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
( OJ L 302, 15 . 11 . 1985 , p. 23 ), and subsequently                       published in the European Court Reports)
amended by Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1248/92 of
30 April 1992 ( OJ L 136 , 19 . 5 . 1992, p. 7) — the Court         In Case C-291 /96 : reference to the Court under Article 177
( Fifth Chamber), composed of: J. C. Moitinho de
Almeida, acting for the President of the Chamber, D. A. O.          of the EC Treaty from the Amtsgericht ( Local Court ),
Edward, J. -P. Puissochet ( Rapporteur ), P. Jann and L.            Reutlingen ( Germany), for a preliminary ruling in the
Sevon, Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate-General; H. von              criminal proceedings pending before that court against
Holstein, Deputy Registrar, Administrator, for the                  Martino Grado and Shahid Bashir — on the interpretation
Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 October 1997, in               of Article 6 of the EC Treaty — the Court ( Second
which it has ruled :                                                Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen ( Rapporteur),
                                                                    President of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini and G. Hirsch,
                                                                    Judges; G. Tesauro, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar,
                                                                    has given a judgment on 9 October 1997, in which it has
                                                                    ruled :
Article 47 (1 ) (e) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/
71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security            The Court has no jurisdiction to answer the question
schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons               referred by the Amtsgericht Reutlingen.
and to members of their families moving within the
Community, as amended and updated by Council
                                                                    (') OJ C 318, 26 . 10 . 1996 .
Regulation (EEC) No 2001 /83 of 2 June 1983 and as
adapted by Annex I, Part VIII, of the Act concerning the
Conditions of Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the
Portuguese Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties,
and which has become Article 47 (1 ) (g) following the
entry into force of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1248/92
of 30 April 1992, implies that, in situations such as that at                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
issue in the main proceedings, calculation of the average
basis for contributions rests solely on the amount of                                          ( Fifth Chamber)
contributions actually paid under the legislation                                           of 16 October 1997
concerned, and the theoretical amount of the benefit thus
obtained is to be duly revalorized and increased as if the          in Case C-258/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
persons concerned had continued to work under the same              the Bundesfinanzhof): Julius Fillibeck Sohne GmbH &c Co.
conditions in the Member State in question. However,                                KG v. Finanzamt Neustadt (*)
where application of that provision so interpreted proves           (Sixth VAT Directive — Supply of services for
less advantageous, for workers who were already                     consideration — Definition — Transport of workers by
employed in another Member State before the regulation                                            the employer)
entered into force in the first Member State, than the
application of a previous convention between those two                                           ( 97/C 357/ 17 )
States, the competent court should, by way of exception,
apply the rules laid down by that convention.                                      (Language of the case: German)
(') OJ C 95 , 30 . 3 . 1996 .                                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                             published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                    In Case C-258/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                    of the EC Treaty from the Bundesfinanzhof ( Federal


title: Case F-26/06: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 5 July 2007 — Bertolete and Others v Commission (Officials — Contract staff — Classification and remuneration — Office for Infrastructure and Logistics Brussels (OIB) — Nursery school teachers — Former paid employees under Belgian law — Change of applicable regime — Equal treatment)

text:
               25.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 199/47

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 5 July 2007 — Bertolete and Others v Commission
   (Case F-26/06) (1)

   (Officials - Contract staff - Classification and remuneration - Office for Infrastructure and Logistics Brussels (OIB) - Nursery school teachers - Former paid employees under Belgian law - Change of applicable regime - Equal treatment)
   (2007/C 199/91)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: Marli Bertolete (Woluwé-Saint-Lambert, Belgium) and Others (represented by: L. Vogel, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Martin and L. Lozano Palacios, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of the Commission decision rejecting the complaints that the applicants had lodged concerning the decisions introduced against the decisions fixing their classification and payment as contract staff
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decisions by which the Commission of the European Communities fixed the applicants' remuneration on the basis of contract staff contracts signed in April 2005;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear its own costs and to pay half of the applicants' costs;

               4.

               Orders the applicants to bear half of their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 108, 6.5.2006, p. 34.


title: Case T-663/14: Judgment of the General Court of 14 January 2016 — International Gaming Projects v OHIM (BIG BINGO) (Community trade mark — Application for Community figurative mark BIG BINGO — Absolute ground for refusal — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               29.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/18

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 January 2016 — International Gaming Projects v OHIM (BIG BINGO)
   (Case T-663/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for Community figurative mark BIG BINGO - Absolute ground for refusal - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 078/27)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: International Gaming Projects Ltd (Valetta, Malta) (represented by: M. D. Garayalde Niño, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 June 2014 (Case R 755/2014-1) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign BIG BINGO as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders International Gaming Projects Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 395, 10.11.2014.


title: Case T-585/10: Action brought on 17 December 2010 — Aitic Penteo v OHIM — Atos Worldline (PENTEO)

text:
               26.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/30

         Action brought on 17 December 2010 — Aitic Penteo v OHIM — Atos Worldline (PENTEO)
   (Case T-585/10)
   2011/C 63/57
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Aitic Penteo, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Carbonell, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Atos Worldline SA (Bruxelles, Belgium)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Modify the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 23 September 2010 in case R 774/2010-1 and grant the Community trade mark application No 5480561

               —

               In the alternative, annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 23 September 2010 in case R 774/2010-1; and

               —

               Order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘PENTEO’, for goods and services in classes 9, 38 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 5480561

      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: Benelux trade mark registration No 772120 of the word mark ‘XENTEO’ for goods and services in classes 9, 36, 37, 38 and 42; International trade mark registration No 863851 of the word mark ‘XENTEO’ for goods and services in classes 9, 36, 37, 38 and 42

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: The applicant considers that the contested decision infringes: (i) Article 14 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which prohibits any discrimination, requiring an equal treatment accordingly with the law, (ii) Article 9 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal disregarded the prior rights of the applicant, (iii) Articles 75 and 76 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal disregarded facts and evidences submitted in due time by the applicant, and (iv) Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erred in assessment of likelihood of confusion.


               20.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 123/9

         Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Frostating lagmannsrett dated 24 October 2016 in the case of Fosen-Linjen AS v AtB AS
   (Case E-16/16)
   (2017/C 123/10)
   A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter dated 24 October 2016 from Frostating lagmannsrett (Frostating Court of Appeal), which was received at the Court Registry on 31 October 2016, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Fosen-Linjen AS v AtB AS on the following questions:

               1.

               Do Article 1(1) and Article 2(1)(c) of Directive 89/665/EEC, or other provisions of that Directive, preclude national rules on awarding damages, where the award of damages due to the contracting authority having set aside EEA law provisions concerning public contracts, is conditional on

                           a)

                           the existence of culpability and a requirement that the contracting authority’s conduct must deviate markedly from a justifiable course of action?

                           b)

                           the existence of a material error where culpability on the part of the contracting authority is part of a more comprehensive overall assessment?

                           c)

                           the contracting authority having committed a material, gross and obvious error?

               2.

               Should Article 1(1) and Article 2(1)(c) of Directive 89/665/EEC, or other provisions of that Directive, be interpreted to mean that a breach of an EEA procurement law provision under which the contracting authority is not free to exercise discretion, constitutes in itself a sufficiently qualified breach that may trigger a right to damages on certain conditions?

               3.

               Do Article 1(1) and Article 2(1)(c) of Directive 89/665/EEC, or other provisions of that Directive, preclude national rules on awarding damages, where the award of damages due to the contracting authority having set aside EEA law provisions concerning public contracts is conditional on the supplier that brings the case and claims compensation proving with a clear, that is qualified preponderance of evidence, that [said supplier] should have been awarded the contract had the contracting authority not committed the error?

               4.

               Do Article 1(1) and Article 2(1)(c) of Directive 89/665/EEC, or other provisions of that Directive, preclude national rules whereby the contracting authority can free itself of the claim for damages by invoking that the tender procedure should in any case have been cancelled as a consequence of an error committed by the contracting authority, other than the error invoked by the plaintiff, when that error was not in fact invoked during the tender procedure? If such other error can be invoked by the contracting authority, does Directive 89/665/EEC preclude a national rule whereby the supplier that brings the action has the burden of proof for the non-existence of such an error?

               5.

               What requirements does the EEA law principle of equal treatment place on the contracting authority’s effective verification of the information provided in the tenders linked to the award criteria? Will the requirement for effective verification be met if the contracting authority is able to verify that the properties offered in the tender appear to have been reliably determined on the basis of the documentation provided in the tender? How accurately must the contracting authority be able to verify the properties of the contract object offered in the tender? If the tenderer commits himself to a certain consumption figure for the tendered object, and this figure is incorporated in the tender evaluation, is the contracting authority’s verification obligation met if he is able to verify that this figure is reliable with a certain uncertainty margin, for example in the order of plus/minus 20 per cent?
               When the contracting authority is to verify the information provided by a tenderer in connection with an award criterion, can the requirement for effective verification of the tenders under the principle of equal treatment be met by the contracting authority having regard to documentation provided elsewhere in the tender?


title: Case T-154/17: Action brought on 9 March 2017 — Deichmann v Commission

text:
               24.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/36

         Action brought on 9 March 2017 — Deichmann v Commission
   (Case T-154/17)
   (2017/C 129/55)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Deichmann SE (Essen, Germany) (represented by: A. Willems, S. De Knop and M. Meulenbelt, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               declare the present application admissible;

               —

               annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2257 of 14 December 2016 re-imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People’s Republic of China and produced by Chengdu Sunshine Shoes Co. Ltd, Foshan Nanhai Shyang Yuu Footwear Ltd and Fujian Sunshine Footwear Co. Ltd and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 5(1) and (2) TEU owing to the absence of a legal basis for the contested regulation. In the alternative, the applicant claims that the Commission lacked competence to adopt the contested regulation.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 266 TFEU by reason of the failure to adopt measures necessary to ensure compliance with the judgment of 4 February 2016, C & J Clark International and Puma (C-659/13 and C-34/14, EU:C:2016:74).

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 1(1) and 10(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 (1) and of the principle of legal certainty by reason of the imposition of anti-dumping duties on the imports of footwear carried out during the period of application of Regulations No 1472/2006 (2) and No 1294/2009. (3)

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 21 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 inasmuch as the anti-dumping duties were imposed without a new assessment of the EU interest being undertaken. According to the applicant, it was in any event manifestly incorrect to conclude that the imposition of the anti-dumping duties was in the interests of the EU.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 5(1) and (4) TEU by reason of the adoption of an act that goes further than is necessary to attain its goal.

      (1)  Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (OJ 2016 L 176, p. 21).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 of 5 October 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam (OJ 2006 L 275, p. 1).

      (3)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009 of 22 December 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in Vietnam and originating in the People’s Republic of China, as extended to imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather consigned from the Macao SAR, whether declared as originating in the Macao SAR or not, following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (OJ 2009 L 352, p. 1).


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) of 27 October 1998 in Case C-51/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation): Réunion Européenne SA and Others v. Spliethoff's Bevrachtingskantoor BV and the Master of the vessel Alblasgracht V002 (Brussels Convention - Interpretation of Articles 5(1) and (3) and 6 - Claim for compensation by the consignee or insurer of the goods on the basis of the bill of lading against a defendant who did not issue the bill of lading but is regarded by the plaintiff as the actual maritime carrier)

text:
C 397/8               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     19.12.98
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial
                                                                         matters (OJ L 299, 31.12.1972), as amended by the
                       (Third Chamber)
                                                                         Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of
                     of 27 October 1998                                  the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United
                                                                         Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, by
in Case C-51/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                 the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession
the Cour de Cassation): ReÂunion EuropeÂenne SA and                      of the Hellenic Republic and by the Convention of
Others v. Spliethoff's Bevrachtingskantoor BV and the                    26 May 1989 on the Accession of the Kingdom of
          Master of the vessel Alblasgracht V002 (1)                     Spain and the Portuguese Republic, but of matters
(Brussels Convention Ð Interpretation of Articles 5(1) and               relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict within the
(3) and 6 Ð Claim for compensation by the consignee or                   meaning of Article 5(3) of that Convention.
insurer of the goods on the basis of the bill of lading
against a defendant who did not issue the bill of lading
but is regarded by the plaintiff as the actual maritime             2. The place where the consignee of the goods, on
                            carrier)                                     completion of a transport operation by sea and then
                                                                         by land, merely discovered the existence of the damage
                        (98/C 397/12)                                    to the goods delivered to him cannot serve to
                                                                         determine the place where the harmful event
                                                                         occurred' within the meaning of Article 5(3) of the
                (Language of the case: French)                           Convention of 28 September 1968, as interpreted by
                                                                         the Court.
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)                  3. Article 6(1) of the Convention of 27 September 1968
                                                                         must be interpreted as meaning that a defendant
                                                                         domiciled in a Contracting State cannot be sued in
                                                                         another Contracting State before a court seised of an
In Case C-51/97: reference to the Court from the Cour de
                                                                         action against a co-defendant not domiciled in a
Cassation (Court of Cassation) (France), under the
                                                                         Contracting State on the ground that the dispute is
Protocol of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the
                                                                         indivisible rather than merely displaying a connection.
Court of Justice of the Convention of 27 September 1968
on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil
and commercial matters, for a preliminary ruling in the             (1) OJ C 94, 22.3.1997.
proceedings pending before that court between ReÂunion
EuropeÂenne      SA     and     Others     and     Spliethoff's
Bevrachtingskantoor BV and the Master of the vessel
Alblasgracht V002 Ð on the interpretation of Articles 5(1)
and (3) and 6 of the said Convention of 27 September
1968 (OJ L 299, 31.12.1972, p. 32), as amended by the
Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland (OJ L 304,                                               (Sixth Chamber)
30.10.1978, p. 1 and Ð amended text Ð p. 77), by the                                      of 27 October 1998
Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the
Hellenic Republic (OJ L 388, 31.12.1982, p. 1) and by the           in Case C-152/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
Convention of 26 May 1989 on the Accession of the                   the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Milano):
Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic (OJ L 285,             Abruzzi Gas SpA (Agas) v. Amministrazione Tributaria di
1989, p. 1) Ð the Court (Third Chamber), composed of:                                           Milano (1)
J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho
de Almeida (Rapporteur) and C. Gulmann, Judges; G.                  (Directive 69/335/EEC Ð Indirect taxes on the raising of
Cosmas, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given            capital Ð Merger of companies Ð Acquisition by a
a judgment on 27 October 1998, in which it has ruled:               company which already holds all the securities of the
                                                                                companies acquired)
                                                                                (98/C 397/13)
1. An action by which the consignee of goods found to
     be damaged on completion of a transport operation by
     sea and then by land, or by which his insurer who has                          (Language of the case: Italian)
     been subrogated to his rights after compensating him,
     seeks redress for the damage suffered, relying on the
     bill of lading covering the maritime transport, not
     against the person who issued that document on his               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
     headed paper but against the person whom the                             published in the European Court Reports)
     plaintiff considered to be the actual maritime carrier,
     falls within the scope not of matters relating to a
     contract within the meaning of Article 5(1) of the             In Case C-152/97: reference to the Court under Article 177
     Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and            of the EC Treaty from the Commissione Tributaria


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 July 2004 in Case C-424/02: Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 75/439/EEC — Disposal of waste oils — Priority to be given to the processing of waste oils by regeneration)

text:
               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/8

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 15 July 2004
   in Case C-424/02: Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 75/439/EEC - Disposal of waste oils - Priority to be given to the processing of waste oils by regeneration)
   (2004/C 228/15)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case C-424/02: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: X. Lewis and M. Konstantinidis) v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent: M. Bethell, assisted by M. Demetriou) — application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations or administrative provisions necessary to comply with Article 3(1) of Council Directive 75/439/EEC of 16 June 1975 on the disposal of waste oils (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 23), as amended by Directive 87/101/EEC of 22 December 1986 (OJ 1987 L 42, p. 43), requiring Member States to take the measures necessary to give priority to the processing of waste oils by regeneration or, in any event, by failing to notify such provisions to the Commission, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive — the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann (President of the Chamber), A. Rosas, S. von Bahr, R. Silva de Lapuerta (Rapporteur) and K. Lenaerts, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Registrar, gave a judgment on 15 July 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to take the measures necessary under Article 3(1) of Council Directive 75/439/EEC of 16 June 1975 on the disposal of waste oils, as amended by Council Directive 87/101/EEC of 22 December 1986, to give priority to the processing of waste oils by regeneration, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 19 of 25.1.2003.


title: Case C-608/12 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 May 2014  — Greinwald GmbH v Nicolas Wessang, Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Article 169(2) of those rules — Content required in the application initiating an appeal)

text:
               11.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/3

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 May 2014 — Greinwald GmbH v Nicolas Wessang, Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-608/12 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Article 169(2) of those rules - Content required in the application initiating an appeal))
   2014/C 261/03
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Greinwald GmbH (represented by: C. Onken, lawyer)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Nicolas Wessang (represented by: A. Grolée, lawyer), Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, acting as Agent)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The main appeal and the cross-appeal are dismissed.

               2.

               Greinwald GmbH is ordered to pay the costs of the main appeal.

               3.

               Nicolas Wessang is ordered to pay the costs of the cross-appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 63, 2.3.2013.


title: Case C-493/06 P: Order of the President of the First Chamber of the Court of 11 December 2007 — Tesco Stores Ltd v MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG, Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               8.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 64/32

         Order of the President of the First Chamber of the Court of 11 December 2007 — Tesco Stores Ltd v MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG, Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-493/06 P) (1)

   (2008/C 64/47)

      Language of the case: English

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

      (1)  OJ C 56, 10.3.2007.


title: Case T-189/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 June 2009 — ASM Brescia v Commission (State aid — Scheme of aid granted by the Italian authorities to certain public utilities in the form of tax exemptions and loans at preferential rates — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market — Actions for annulment — Individual concern — Admissibility — Article 87(3)(c) EC — Article 86(2) EC)

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/40

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 June 2009 — ASM Brescia v Commission
   (Case T-189/03) (1)

   (State aid - Scheme of aid granted by the Italian authorities to certain public utilities in the form of tax exemptions and loans at preferential rates - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market - Actions for annulment - Individual concern - Admissibility - Article 87(3)(c) EC - Article 86(2) EC)
   2009/C 180/72
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: ASM Brescia SpA (Brescia, Italy) (represented by: F. Capelli, F. Vitale and M. Valcada, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Di Bucci, Agent)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Articles 2 and 3 of Commission Decision 2003/193/EC of 5 June 2002 on State aid granted by Italy in the form of tax exemptions and subsidised loans to public utilities with a majority public capital holding (OJ 2003 L 77, p. 21).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders ASM Brescia SpA to bear its own costs as well as those incurred by the Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 184, 2.8.2003.


title: Case C-251/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Rennes (France) lodged on 23 May 2011 — Martial Huet v Université de Bretagne occidentale

text:
               13.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 238/4

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Rennes (France) lodged on 23 May 2011 — Martial Huet v Université de Bretagne occidentale
   (Case C-251/11)
   2011/C 238/07
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal administratif de Rennes

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Martial Huet

      Defendant: Université de Bretagne occidentale

      Question referred

   In circumstances where the State decides to renew the appointment of a staff member previously appointed for a period of six years under a fixed-term contract, does the obligation to use a contract of indefinite duration pursuant to Article 13 of the Law of 26 July 2005 necessarily mean, in light of the objectives of Directive 1999/70 of 28 June 1999, (1) that the new contract must reproduce in identical terms the principal clauses of the previous contract, in particular, those clauses concerning the job title and remuneration?

      (1)  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).


title: Case C-192/08: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 November 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland)) — TeliaSonera Finland Oyj v iMEZ Ab (Telecommunications sector — Electronic communications — Directive 2002/19/EC — Article 4(1) — Networks and services — Interconnexion agreements between telecommunications undertakings — Obligation to negotiate in good faith — Definition of operator of public communications networks — Articles 5 and 8 — Powers of the national regulatory authorities — Undertaking without significant market power)

text:
               16.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 11/3

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 November 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland)) — TeliaSonera Finland Oyj v iMEZ Ab
   (Case C-192/08) (1)

   (Telecommunications sector - Electronic communications - Directive 2002/19/EC - Article 4(1) - Networks and services - Interconnexion agreements between telecommunications undertakings - Obligation to negotiate in good faith - Definition of ‘operator of public communications networks’ - Articles 5 and 8 - Powers of the national regulatory authorities - Undertaking without significant market power)
   2010/C 11/04
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Referring court

   Korkein hallinto-oikeus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: TeliaSonera Finland Oyj

      Intervening parties: iMEZ Ab

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Interpretation of Articles 4(1), 5 and 8 of Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities (Access Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 7) — National legislation requiring every telecommunications operator to negotiate on interconnection with other telecommunications operators — Extent of the obligation to negotiate and requirements which may be imposed by the national regulatory authority

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 4(1) of Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities (the ‘Access Directive’), read in conjunction with recitals 5, 6, 8 and 19 in its preamble and with Articles 5 and 8 thereof, precludes national legislation such as the Communications Market Law (Viestintämarkkinalaki) of 23 May 2003 in so far as it does not restrict the possibility of relying on the obligation to negotiate on the interconnection of networks solely to operators of public communications networks. It is for the national court to determine whether, having regard to the status and the nature of the operators concerned in the main proceedings, they may be classified as operators of public communications networks.

               2.

               A national regulatory authority may take the view that the obligation to negotiate an interconnection has been breached where an undertaking which does not have significant market power proposes interconnection to another undertaking under unilateral conditions likely to hinder the emergence of a competitive market at the retail level where those conditions prevent the clients of the second undertaking from benefiting from its services.

               3.

               A national regulatory authority may require an undertaking which does not have significant market power but which controls access to end-users to negotiate in good faith with another undertaking for either interconnection of the two networks concerned if the undertaking which requests such access must be classified as an operator of public communications networks, or interoperability of SMS and MMS message services if that undertaking is not covered by that classification.

      (1)  OJ C 197, 02.08.2008.


title: Case T-283/04: Action brought on 9 July 2004 by Georgia-Pacific S.A.R.L. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM)

text:
               23.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/34

         Action brought on 9 July 2004 by Georgia-Pacific S.A.R.L. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM)
   (Case T-283/04)
   (2004/C 262/66)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 9 July 2004 by Georgia-Pacific S.A.R.L., established in Luxembourg, represented by R. Delorey, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul and alter the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office in so far as it held that the mark applied for under No 2 101 277 was devoid of distinctive character throughout the Community in relation to ‘rolls of paper for household use, kitchen towels, hand towels of paper’ and, when giving a new ruling, hold that the mark refused is distinctive.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:

               Community trade mark sought:

               Three-dimensional mark in the form of a design for kitchen towels.

               Goods or services:

               Goods in Class 16 (rolls of paper for household use, kitchen towels, hand towels of paper) — Application No 2 101 277.

               Decision contested before the Board of Appeal:

               Refusal to register by the examiner.

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Dismissal of the appeal.

               Pleas in law:

               The contested decision infringes Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94.
               The sign is clearly capable of being represented graphically for the purposes of Article 7(1)(a) and Article 4 of the Regulation.
               The sign is not descriptive or customary and does not consist of a shape resulting from the natureof the goods.
               The sign is sufficiently distinctive to satisfy the requirements of Article 7(1)(b) of the Regulation.


               23.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/9

         Action brought on 9 July 2010 by Swisscom RE Aktiengesellschaft against the EFTA Surveillance Authority
   (Case E-7/10)
   2010/C 256/09
   An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 9 July 2010 by Swisscom RE Aktiengesellschaft, represented by Dr. Michael Sánchez Rydelski, Rechtsanwalt for Swisscom RE Aktiengesellschaft, Kirchstrasse 12, 9490 Vaduz, LIECHTENSTEIN.
   Swisscom RE Aktiengesellschaft requests the EFTA Court to:

               1.

               annul EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Decision No 97/10/COL of 24 March 2010 regarding the taxation of captive insurance companies under the Liechtenstein Tax Act;

               2.

               in the alternative, declare void Articles 3 and 4 of EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Decision No 97/10/COL of 24 March 2010 to the extent that they order the recovery of the aid referred to in Article 1 of that Decision;
               and

               3.

               order the EFTA Surveillance Authority to pay the costs of the proceedings.

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

               —

               The Applicant, Swisscom RE Aktiengesellschaft, a wholly owned subsidiary of Swisscom AG, has carried out captive reinsurance operations in Liechtenstein for the Swisscom Group since its establishment in 1997.

               —

               The Applicant submits that the EFTA Surveillance Authority incorrectly applied Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement. The Liechtenstein tax measures do not constitute State aid because captives do not qualify as undertakings within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement. Furthermore, the Liechtenstein tax measure cannot be regarded as selective measures under Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.

               —

               Moreover, the Applicant claims:

                           —

                           that, should the Court conclude that the Liechtenstein tax measures were to involve State aid, the EFTA Surveillance Authority erred in ordering the recovery of the alleged aid as from 6 November 2001; and

                           —

                           that the EFTA Surveillance Authority did not provide adequate reasoning on essential points in its assessment, as required by Article 16 of the Surveillance and Court Agreement.


title: Case C-178/15: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 30 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Wrocławia-Śródmieścia — Poland) — Alicja Sobczyszyn v Szkoła Podstawowa w Rzeplinie (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Organisation of working time — Directive 2003/88/EC — Right to paid annual leave — Teachers — Convalescence leave — Annual leave coinciding with convalescence leave — Right to take the annual leave in another period)

text:
               12.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 335/17

         Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 30 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Wrocławia-Śródmieścia — Poland) — Alicja Sobczyszyn v Szkoła Podstawowa w Rzeplinie
   (Case C-178/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Organisation of working time - Directive 2003/88/EC - Right to paid annual leave - Teachers - Convalescence leave - Annual leave coinciding with convalescence leave - Right to take the annual leave in another period))
   (2016/C 335/22)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Sąd Rejonowy dla Wrocławia-Śródmieścia

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Alicja Sobczyszyn

      Defendant: Szkoła Podstawowa w Rzeplinie

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time must be interpreted as precluding national legislation or a national practice, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which a worker who is on convalescence leave, granted in accordance with national law, during the period of annual leave scheduled in the leave roster of the establishment where he is employed may be refused, at the end of his convalescence leave, the right to take his paid annual leave in a subsequent period, provided that the purpose of the right to convalescence leave is different from that of the right to annual leave, a matter which is for the national court to determine.

      (1)  OJ C 245, 27.7.2015.


title: Case T-197/09: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2011 — Slovenia v Commission (EAGGF — ‘Guarantee’ Section — Expenditure excluded from Community financing — Arable crops)

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/33

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2011 — Slovenia v Commission
   (Case T-197/09) (1)

   (EAGGF - ‘Guarantee’ Section - Expenditure excluded from Community financing - Arable crops)
   2011/C 252/76
   Language of the case: Slovene

      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Slovenia (represented initially by: Ž. Cilenšek Bončina, Agent, and subsequently by L. Bembič, Agent, and J. Sladič, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: T. van Rijn and K. Banks, subsequently by F. Jimeno Fernández and M. Žebre, and finally by F. Jimeno Fernández and B. Rous, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of Commission Decision 2009/253/EC of 19 March 2009 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) (OJ 2009 L 75, p. 15), in so far as it excludes certain expenditure incurred by the Republic of Slovenia.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Slovenia to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 180, 1.8.2009.


title: Case C-353/06: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 October 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Flensburg, Germany) — Proceedings brought by Stefan Grunkin, Dorothee Regina Paul (Right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States — Private international law relating to surnames — Applicable law determined by nationality alone — Minor child born and resident in one Member State with the nationality of another Member State — Non-recognition in the Member State of which he is a national of the surname acquired in the Member State of birth and residence)

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/3

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 October 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Flensburg, Germany) — Proceedings brought by Stefan Grunkin, Dorothee Regina Paul
   (Case C-353/06) (1)

   (Right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States - Private international law relating to surnames - Applicable law determined by nationality alone - Minor child born and resident in one Member State with the nationality of another Member State - Non-recognition in the Member State of which he is a national of the surname acquired in the Member State of birth and residence)
   (2008/C 313/04)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Amtsgericht Flensburg
   Parties to the main proceedings
   Stefan Grunkin, Dorothee Regina Paul

      Other parties: Leonhard Matthias Grunkin-Paul, Standesamt Niebüll,
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Amtsgericht Flensburg (Germany) — Interpretation of Articles 12 and 18 of the EC Treaty — National rule on conflict of laws connecting the law governing the determination of a person's surname to nationality alone — Refusal by the Member State of which he is a national to recognise the surname of a child, made up of the respective surnames of his parents, where the child was born and is resident in another Member State in which he has been registered under that double-barrelled name
   Operative part of the judgment
   In circumstances such as those of the case in the main proceedings, Article 18 EC precludes the authorities of a Member State, in applying national law, from refusing to recognise a child's surname, as determined and registered in a second Member State in which the child — who, like his parents, has only the nationality of the first Member State — was born and has been resident since birth.

      (1)  OJ C 281, 18.11.2006.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 April 2000 in Case T-18/98: Peter Reichert v European Parliament (Officials — Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Expatriation allowance — Place in which main occupation is carried on)

text:
C 176/20                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           24.6.2000
                                                           COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 3. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay two
                                                                                thirds of the costs incurred by the applicant, excluding those
                                                                                incurred as a result of the interventions of RTP — Radiotelevisão
                          of 10 May 2000                                         Portuguesa SA and the Portuguese Republic;
                                                                            4. Orders the Portuguese Republic and RTP — Radiotelevisão
in Case T-46/97: SIC — Sociedade Independente de                                 Portuguesa SA to bear their own costs and jointly and severally
Comunicação SA v Commission of the European Com-                                to pay two thirds of the costs incurred by the applicant as a result
                              munities (1)                                       of their intervention;
                                                                            5. Orders the United Kingdom to bear its own costs.
(Financing of public television channels — Complaint —
State Aid — Failure to open the procedure under Article                     (1) OJ C 142 of 10.5.1997.
93(2) of the EC Treaty (now Article 88(2) EC) — Action for
                              annulment)
                          (2000/C 176/33)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                  (Language of the case: Portuguese)
                                                                                of 13 April 2000
In Case T-46/97: SIC — Sociedade Independente de Comunica-
ção, SA, established in Estrada da Outorela, Portugal, represent-           in Case T-18/98: Peter Reichert v European Parliament (1)
ed by C. Botelho Moniz and P. Moura Pinheiro, of the Lisbon
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                       (Officials — Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations
Chambers of A. May, 31 Grand-rue, v Commission of the                       — Expatriation allowance — Place in which main occupation
European Communities (Agents: G. Rozet and A. Alves Vieira),                                              is carried on)
supported by RTP — Radiotelevisão Portuguesa SA, established
in Lisbon, represented by M. Tinoco de Faria and I. Jalles, of                                          (2000/C 176/34)
the Lisbon Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the Chambers of Beghin and Feider, 56-58 Rue Charles Martel,
Portuguese Republic (Agents: L. Fernandes, M.L. Duarte and                                       (Language of the case: German)
T. Ribeiro, and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland (Agent: R. Magrill), application for the annulment of:
(1) the Commission’s decision of 7 November 1996 concern-                   In Case T-18/98: Peter Reichert, a member of the temporary
ing a proceeding under Article 93 of the EC Treaty (now                     staff working for the Socialist Group within the European
Article 88 EC) on the financing of public television channels,              Parliament, represented by Dieter Rogalla, Rechtsanwalt,
notified to the applicant on 6 January 1997, and (2) the                    Sprockhövel (Germany), with an address for service in Luxem-
decision allegedly contained in a letter from the Commission                bourg at the Chambers of Decker, Braun & Wagner, P.O. Box
of 20 December 1996 concerning the complaint by the                         335, v European Parliament (Agents: Yannis Pantalis and
applicant against RTP-Radiotelevisão Portuguesa SA — the                   Evelyn Waldherr) — application for annulment of the Euro-
Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of:                   pean Parliament’s decision of 21 October 1997 concerning
B. Vesterdorf, President, V. Tiili, A. Potocki, A.W.H. Meij and             the grant of the expatriation allowance provided for in Article
M. Vilaras, Judges; G. Herzig, Administrator, for the Registrar,            4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of officials of the
has given a judgment on 10 May 2000 in which it:                            European Communities — the Court of First Instance (Single
                                                                            Judge), composed of: P. Mengozzi, sitting as a single judge;
                                                                            J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible in so far as it is directed         a judgment on 13 April 2000, in which it:
     against the Commission’s letter of 20 December 1996;
                                                                            1. Dismisses the application;
2. Annuls the Decision in so far as it relates to the measures by the
                                                                            2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
     Portuguese State in favour of RTP — Radiotelevisão Portuguesa
     SA consisting in grants by way of compensation, tax exemptions,
     payment facilities for use of the television broadcasting network      (1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998.
     and the rescheduling of a debt arising from failure to pay social
     security contributions, together with non-recovery of interest for
     late payment;


title: Case T-222/08: Action brought on 9 June 2008 — Sanatur v OHIM — Sektkellerei Schloss Wachenheim (life light)

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/46

         Action brought on 9 June 2008 — Sanatur v OHIM — Sektkellerei Schloss Wachenheim (life light)
   (Case T-222/08)
   (2008/C 223/80)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Sanatur GmbH (Singen, Germany) (represented by: M. Wiume, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Sektkellerei Schloss Wachenheim AG (Trier, Germany)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 March 2008 in Case R 1257/2006-1;

               —

               Alter that decision so that the appeal is dismissed;

               —

               Order the intervener to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs of the appeal.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Sanatur GmbH.

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘life light’ for goods in Class 32 (Application No 3 192 481).

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Sektkellerei Schloss Wachenheim AG.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: German figurative mark ‘LIGHT live’ for goods in Class 32 (Mark No 302 00 216).

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Dismissal of the opposition.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annul the decision of the Opposition Division.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) in that no likelihood of confusion exists between the conflicting marks.

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


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) 13 December 2001 in Case C-235/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales (Queen's Bench Division)): Commissioners of Customs & Excise v CSC Financial Services Ltd (Sixth VAT Directive — Article 13B(d)(5) — Exempt transactions — Transactions in securities — Negotiation — Provision of a "call centre" service)

text:
2.3.2002               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 56/1
                                                                    I
                                                              (Information)
                                                  COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                           COURT OF JUSTICE
               OPINION 2/00 OF THE COURT                                Colomer, J. Mischo, A. Tizzano, L.A. Geelhoed and C. Stix-
                                                                        Hackl, Advocates General,gives the following Opinion:
                      of 6 December 2001
                                                                        Competence to conclude the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety is shared
                                                                        between the European Community and its Member States.
(Cartagena Protocol — Conclusion — Legal basis —
Articles 133 EC, 174(4) EC and 175(1) EC — Living
modified organisms — Environmental protection — Com-                    (1) JO C 355 of 9 December 2000.
                    mon commercial policy)
                          (2002/C 56/01)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
The Court of Justice has received a request for an Opinion,
lodged at the Court Registry on 27 October 2000 (1) by
the Commission of the European Communities pursuant to                                          (Fifth Chamber)
Article 300(6) EC, on the following questions:
                                                                                13 December 2001
(1) Do Articles 133 and 174(4), in conjunction with the
      relevant provisions of Article 300 of the EC Treaty,
                                                                        in Case C-235/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
      constitute the appropriate legal basis for the act conclud-
                                                                        the High Court of Justice of England and Wales (Queen’s
      ing, on behalf of the European Community, the Cartagena
                                                                        Bench Division)): Commissioners of Customs & Excise v
      Biosafety Protocol?
                                                                                CSC Financial Services Ltd (1)
(2) If the reply to the first question is in the affirmative, are
      the powers that the Member States retain in matters of            (Sixth VAT Directive — Article 13B(d)(5) — Exempt
      environmental protection — and which might justify                transactions — Transactions in securities — Negotiation —
      their participation in the Cartagena Biosafety Protocol                         Provision of a ‘call centre’ service)
      — residual powers in relation to the preponderant
      competence held by the Community to enter into inter-                                      (2002/C 56/02)
      national commitments regarding the matters dealt with
      by the Protocol?
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
The Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President,
P. Jann, F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, Presidents of
Chambers, C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola,                     In Case C-235/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
J.-P. Puissochet, L. Sevón, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur),                  EC by the High Court of Justice of England and Wales (Queen’s
R. Schintgen and V. Skouris, Judges, after hearing S. Alber,            Bench Division) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
First Advocate General, F.G. Jacobs, P. Léger, D. Ruiz-Jarabo           pending before that court between Commissioners of Customs
 ---pagebreak--- C 56/2                    EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                            2.3.2002
& Excise and CSC Financial Services Ltd, on the interpretation                to comply with Council Directive 98/76/EC of 1 October
of Article 13B(d)(5) of the Sixth Council Directive                           1998 amending Directive 96/26/EC on admission to the
(77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the                       occupation of road haulage operator and road passenger
laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —                        transport operator and mutual recognition of diplomas, certifi-
Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assess-                    cates and other evidence of formal qualifications intended to
ment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1), the Court (Fifth Chamber),                        facilitate for these operators the right to freedom of establish-
composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber, A. La Pergola,                ment in national and international transport operations (OJ
L. Sevón (Rapporteur), M. Wathelet and C.W.A. Timmermans,                    1998 L 277, p. 17) or, in any event, by not notifying
Judges, Advocate General: D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Registrar:                  those provisions to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of
D. Louterman-Hubeau, Head of Division, has given a judgment                   Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
on 13 December 2001, in which it has ruled:                                   directive — the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann
                                                                              (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, L. Sevón and
                                                                              M. Wathelet, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass,
On a proper construction of Article 13B(d)(5) of the Sixth Council
                                                                              Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 December 2001, in
Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of
                                                                              which it:
the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common
system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment
                                                                              1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period
—      ‘transactions in securities’ means transactions liable to create,            the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
       alter or extinguish parties’ rights and obligations in respect of            comply with Council Directive 98/76/EC of 1 October 1998
       securities;                                                                  amending Directive 96/26/EC on admission to the occupation
                                                                                of road haulage operator and road passenger transport operator
—      ‘negotiation in securities’ does not cover services limited to               and mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other
       providing information about a financial product and, as                      evidence of formal qualifications intended to facilitate for these
       the case may be, receiving and processing applications for                   operators the right to freedom of establishment in national
       subscription to the relevant securities, without issuing them.               and international transport operations, the Grand Duchy of
                                                                                Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
                                                                                directive.
(1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.
                                                                              2.    Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
                                                                              (1) OJ C 118 of 21.4.2001.
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            (First Chamber)
                          13 December 2001
                                                                              Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arios Pagos
in Case C-107/01: Commission of the European Communi-                         (Greece) by order of 10 July 2001 in the case of Alexan-
              ties v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)                            dros K. Kefalas and Others against (1) Elliniko Dimosio
                                                                              (the Greek State), (2) Organismos Ikonomikis Anasigkrot-
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                        isis Epikhirision AE, legally represented by the liquidator,
Directive 98/76/EC — Failure to transpose within the                          Ethniki Kefalaiou Anonimi Etairia Diakhirisis Energitikou
                           prescribed period)                                 kai Pathitikou, (3) Athinaiki Khartopiia AE, and (4) Geor-
                                                                                gios I. Tsamasfiros and Others
                             (2002/C 56/03)
                                                                                (Case C-303/01)
                      (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (2002/C 56/04)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     in the European Court Reports)
                                                                              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
In Case C-107/01: Commission of the European Communities                      European Communities by order of the Arios Pagos (Greek
(Agent: M. Wolfcarius) v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Agent:                    Supreme Court) of 10 July 2001, received at the Court Registry
J. Faltz) — application for a declaration that by failing to adopt            on 30 July 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary                 Alexandros K. Kefalas and Others against (1) Elliniko Dimosio


title: Case C-492/01 P: Appeal brought on 19 December 2001 by Dieckmann & Hansen GmbH against the judgment delivered on 23 October 2001 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-155/99 between Dieckmann & Hansen GmbH and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 44/8                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      16.2.2002
1.    Do Articles 20(2) and 17 of the Sixth Directive (1) or the           The appellant claims that the Court should:
      principles, in European law, of the protection of legitimate
      expectations and legal certainty preclude adjustment —
      in a case involving no fraud or abuse or change of                   (1) set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
      planned use as referred to in paragraphs 50 and 51 of the                  the European Communities of 23 October 2001;
      judgment of the Court of Justice in the Schloßstrasse
      case (2) — of the VAT deducted by a taxable person,
      which he has paid on an item of (immovable) property                 (2) order the respondent to pay to the appellant
      supplied to him with a view to the letting (subject to                     DEM 8 725 320,45 together with interest at 8 % per
      VAT) of that property, for the years of the period of                      annum from the date on which the action was brought;
      adjustment under Article 20(2) which have not yet
      elapsed at the time of the cessation of that right of option
      (in this case, in fact, 1 January 1996) for the sole reason          (3) declare that the respondent is liable to compensate the
      that, as a result of a legislative amendment, the taxable                  appellant for all further damage suffered by it as a result
      person is no longer entitled to waive exemption for that                   of its having had to dismiss its employees and close down
      letting?                                                                   its business with effect from 31 December 1999 on
                                                                                account of the ban on the importation of Kazakh caviar;
2.    If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, is
      the legislative amendment inapplicable only in respect of
      the deducted tax mentioned in Question 1, or is it also              (4) order the Commission to pay the costs.
      inapplicable — until the period of adjustment has expired
      — in respect of the taxed status (subject to the provisions
      of Article 13(C) of the Sixth Directive) of the letting
      referred to in Question 1?
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
(1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
    harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
                                                                           —     The Court of First Instance wrongly assumed that, for the
    turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
    basis of assessment (OJ 1977, L 145, p. 1).                                  purposes of adopting Decision 1999/244/EC (1), which
(2) Judgment of 8.6.2000 in Case C-396/98.                                       deleted Kazakhstan from the list of third countries, the
                                                                                Commission enjoyed a wide discretion, with the result
                                                                                that only a sufficiently serious breach of the principle of
                                                                                sound administration protecting the appellant could
                                                                                render the Commission liable to pay compensation.
                                                                                The decision in question is based on the authorisation
                                                                                conferred by Article 2(3) of Council Decision 95/408/EC,
                                                                                which lays down, according to the relevant conditions
                                                                                and content, and in conjunction with Article 2(2), specific,
                                                                                restricted criteria to be observed by the Commission.
Appeal brought on 19 December 2001 by Dieckmann &                                The Commission is required to ascertain whether the
Hansen GmbH against the judgment delivered on 23                                 authorities of the third country concerned have given
October 2001 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First                          guarantees at least equivalent to those provided for by
Instance of the European Communities in Case T-155/99                            Council Directive 91/493/EEC or, as the case may be,
between Dieckmann & Hansen GmbH and the Com-                                     whether those guarantees continue to exist.
            mission of the European Communities
                                                                                Findings made in respect of such guarantees must reflect
                         (Case C-492/01 P)                                       concrete circumstances which are specified in Council
                                                                                Directive 91/943 and concern conditions for the pro-
                                                                                duction and placing on the market of the products to be
                           (2002/C 44/15)                                        imported from the third country in question, especially
                                                                                as regards the maintenance of hygiene standards for the
                                                                                protection of consumers. Those conditions are to be
                                                                                specifically determined. Agricultural or economic con-
                                                                                siderations cannot be taken into consideration in such
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 23 October 2001                      determination.
by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-155/99 between Dieckmann
& Hansen GmbH and the Commission of the European                           —     In any event, the Court of First Instance disregarded the
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the                       fact that the Commission manifestly and significantly
European Communities on 19 December 2001 by Dieckmann                            exceeded any discretion which it may have had: although
& Hansen GmbH, represented by H.-J. Rabe, Rechtsanwalt, of                       the veterinary inspectors instructed by the Commission
Messrs Latham & Watkins Schön Nolte, of Warburgstrasse 50,                       stated in their report that their assessment of the ‘general
D-20354 Hamburg.                                                                 situation in Kazakhstan so far as concerns the veterinary
 ---pagebreak--- 16.2.2002               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 44/9
      legislation in force, current health policy and veterinary              —     requiring bio-medical analysis laboratories estab-
      supervision’ also applied to caviar, their findings in fact                   lished in other Member States to have their place of
      related exclusively to the production of horse meat and                       business on French territory as a condition for
      pike fillets. The Commission made a proposal to the                           obtaining the requisite operating authorisation; and
      Veterinary Committee without having itself carried out
      any examination or appraisal and without submitting the
      inspectors’ report.                                                     —     precluding any reimbursement of the cost of bio-
                                                                                medical analyses carried out by bio-medical analysis
                                                                                laboratories established in another Member State,
—     The Court of First Instance further disregarded the fact
      that, in addition, the Commission clearly violated the
      principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, to              the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
      the detriment of the appellant: according to Commission                 under Articles 43 and 49 of the EC Treaty; and
      Decision 1999/136 of 28 January 1999, published in the
      Official Journal of 18 February 1999, the importation of          2.    order the French Republic to pay the costs.
      caviar from Kazakhstan continued to be permitted (List II).
      Thereafter, at the beginning of March 1999, the appellant
      concluded contracts for the supply of caviar from Kazakh-
      stan for the 1999 season. However, in January 1999, at
      all events before 18 February 1999, the Commission was            Pleas in law and main arguments
      already aware of the results of the inspection, as set out
      in the report, which prompted it to submit to the
      Veterinary Committee, for consideration at its meeting            —     Restriction of Article 43 EC by virtue of the fact that the
      on 23 February 1999, a draft providing for deletion from                requisite administrative authorisation for operating a bio-
      List II. In view of the small number of importers affected,             medical analysis laboratory (Article L 757 of the Public
      it would have been easy for the Commission to inform                    Health Code) can only be delivered by the Préfet for the
      those undertakings of the results of the inspection visit,              département in which the laboratory operates (Article 15
      which were available to it in January, and of the                       of Decree No 76-1004). That provision precludes the
      consequences which those results might have for the                     setting up of an establishment having the status of an
      importation of caviar.                                                  office or agency. The Commission does not dispute that
                                                                              a Member State may provide for rules governing the
                                                                              authorisation for operating laboratories. Such rules must
                                                                              however take account of the requirements and safeguards
(1) Decision 1999/244/EC amending Decision 97/296/EC drawing
    up the list of third countries from which the import of fishery           already complied with in another Member State of
    products is authorised for human consumption (OJ 1999 L 91,               establishment without disregarding that a higher level of
    p. 37).                                                                   protection may exist in the first Member State. Otherwise,
                                                                              failure to take into account safeguards already complied
                                                                              with in another Member State would lead to a duplicate
                                                                              procedure for applying for authorisation over and above
                                                                              the authorisation which the foreign laboratory has already
                                                                              obtained in its Member State of establishment. Such a
                                                                              situation runs counter to the principle of proportionality
                                                                              which requires that the objectives pursued must be
                                                                              achieved by the least restrictive means.
Action brought on 21 December 2001 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the French Republic                 —     Restriction of Article 43 EC by virtue of the fact that the
                                                                              French legislation (Article R 332-3 of the Social Security
                                                                              Code) restricts financial assistance from sickness
                          (Case C-496/01)                                     insurance schemes only to exceptional cases, that is to
                                                                              say where the insured person is able to show that he
                           (2002/C 44/16)                                     cannot obtain the appropriate treatment on French
                                                                              territory, which is moreover not the case so far as
                                                                              concerns bio-medical analysis laboratories. That consti-
                                                                              tutes a barrier both to the freedom to provide services
                                                                              (where a laboratory does not have an establishment in
An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                              France) and to the right to set up secondary establish-
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 21 December
                                                                              ments (where a laboratory has a secondary establishment
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                              where analyses are not however carried out).
represented by Maria Patakia, acting as Agent.
                                                                        The Commission takes the view that such restrictions are not
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        justified on public-health grounds in particular. The safeguards
                                                                        afforded by the Council directives in the field (93/16/EEC,
1.    Declare that by:                                                  85/432/EEC, 85/433/EEC, 78/1026/EEC and 78/1027/EEC)