title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 14 February 1995 in Case C-279/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof): Finanzamt Köln-Altstadt v. Roland Schumacker (Article 48 of the EEC Treaty - Principle of equal treatment - Taxation of the income of non-residents)

text:
25 . 3 . 95           EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 74/1
                                                                    I
                                                             (Information)
                                                COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                          COURT OF JUSTICE
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  distribution sector by television broadcasters established on
                       ( Sixth Chamber)                                their territory.
                      of 9 February 1995                               f 1 ) OJ No C 293 , 29 . 10 . 1993 .
in Case C-412/93 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from             (2 ) OJ No L 298, 17. 10 . 1989, p. 23 .
the Tribunal de Commerce de Paris ): Société d'Importation
Édouard Leclerc-Siplec v. TF1 Publicité SA and M6
                         Publicité SA ( 1 )
(Televised advertising — Free movement of goods and
                             services)                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          ( 95/C 74/01 )                                                     of 14 February 1995
                                                                       in Case C-279/93 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
                 (Language of the case: French)                        the Bundesfinanzhof): Finanzamt Köln-Altstadt v. Roland
                                                                                Schumacker ( x )
(Provisional- translation; the definitive translation will be           (Article 48 ofthe EEC Treaty — Principle ofequal treatment
          published in the European Court Reports)                              — Taxation of the income of non-residents)
                                                                                95/C 74/02   '
In Case C-4 12/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EEC Treaty from the Tribunal de Commerce de Paris
( Commercial Court, Paris) for a preliminary ruling in the                             (Language of the case: German)
proceedings pending before that court between Societe
d'Importation Edouard Leclerc-Siplec and ( 1 ) TF1 Publicité           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
SA (2 ) M6 Publicité SA — on the interpretation of                               published in the European Court Reports)
Articles 30, 85, 86, 5 and 3 ( f) of the EEC Treaty and
Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the                  In Case C-279/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177
coordination of certain provisions laid down by law,                   of the EEC Treaty from the Bundesfinanzhof ( Federal
regulation or administrative action in Member States                   Finance Court) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting                      pending before that court between Finanzamt Köln-Altstadt
activities (2 ) — the Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of:            and Roland Schumacker — on the interpretation of
F. A. Schockweiler, President of the Chamber, P. J. G.                 Article 48 of the EEC Treaty — the Court, composed of:
Kapteyn ( Rapporteur ), G. F. Mancini, C. N. Kakouris and              G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, F. A. Schockweiler
J. L. Murray, Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate General; H.               ( Rapporteur ), P. J. G. Kapteyn and C. Gulmann (Presidents
von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, gave a judgment on                     of Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, C. N. Kakouris, J. C.
9 February 1995 , the operative part of which is as                    Moitinho de Almeida, J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward, J.-P.
follows :                                                              Puissochet and G. Hirsch, Judges; P. Leger, Advocate
                                                                       General; H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the
on a proper construction Articles 30, 85, 86, 5 and 3 (f) of           Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 February 1995 , in
the Treaty and Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October               which it rules :
 1989 on the coordination ofcertain provisions laid down by
law, regulation or administrative action in Member States               1 . Article 48 of the EEC Treaty must be interpreted as
concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities                 being capable of limiting the right of a Member State to
do not preclude Member States from prohibiting, by statute                   lay down conditions concerning the liability to taxation
or by regulation, the broadcasting of advertisements for the                 ofa national ofanother Member State and the manner in
 ---pagebreak---  No C 74/2           | EN 1                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                          25 . 3 . 95
     which tax is to be levied on the income received by him           with      the    Bundesanstalt      fur   Arbeit,   the      Bundes
     within its territory since that Article does not allow a          versicherungsanstalt fur Angestellte und Mr Borge Wandahl
    Member State, as regards the collection of direct taxes,           as joined parties in the main proceedings — on the
     to treat a national ofanother Member State employed in            interpretation of Article 14 ( 1 ) ( a) and (2 ) (b) (i ) of Council
    the territory ofthe first State in the exercise ofhis right of     Regulation 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of
    freedom of movement less favourably than one of its                social security schemes to employed persons, to
    own nationals in the same situation.                               self-employed persons and to members of their families
                                                                       moving within the Community and Article 12a of Council
2 . Article 48 of the Treaty must be interpreted as                    Regulation No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 laying down the
    precluding the application of rules of a Member State              procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC ) No 1408/71 ,
    under which a worker who is a national of, and resides             in the versions codified by Council Regulation (EEC )
    in, another Member State and is employed in the first              No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983 (2) — the Court ( Second
    State is taxed more heavily than a worker who resides in           Chamber), composed of F. A. Schockweiler ( Rapporteur),
    the first State and performs the same work there when,             G. F. Mancini and G. Hirsch, Judges; C. O. Lenz, Advocate
    as in the main action, the national of the second State            General; H. A. Riihl, Principal Administrator, for the
    obtains his income entirely or almost exclusively from             Registrar, gave a judgment on 16 February 1995, the
    the work performed in the first State and does not                 operative part of which is as follows:
    receive in the second State sufficient income to be subject
    to taxation there in a manner enabling his personal and             1 . the situation of a Danish worker, residing in Denmark
    family circumstances to be taken into account.                           and employed exclusively by an undertaking with its
                                                                             seat in Germany, who in the course of that employment
3 . Article 48 of the Treaty must be interpreted as                          relationship, regularly, for several hours each week and
    precluding a provision in the legislation of a Member                    for a period not limited to twelve months pursues his
    State on direct taxation under which the benefit of                      activity partly in Denmark, falls under Article 14
    procedures such as annual adjustment of deductions at                    (2) (b) (i) of Council Regulation 1408/71 of 14 June
    source in respect of wages tax and the assessment by the                 19-71 on the application ' of social security schemes to
    administration ofthe tax payable on remuneration from                    employed persons, to self-employed persons and to
    employment is available only to residents, thereby                       members of their families moving within the
    excluding natural persons who have no permanent                          Community.
    residence or usual abode on its territory but receive
    income there from employment.                                      2 . 'Activity' within the meaning of Article 14 (2) (b) (i) of
                                                                             Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 covers the term
(!) OJ No C 177, 29 . 6 . 1993 .                                             'employed'.
                                                                       (!) OJ No C 332, 18 . 12 . 1993 .
                                                                       ( 2 ) OJ No L 230, 22. 8 . 1983 , p . 6 .
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       (Second Chamber)
                      of 16 February 1995
in Case C-425/93 -reference for a preliminary ruling from             References for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale
the Schleswig-Holsteinisches Landessozialgericht): Calle              Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio — Sezione II — by
Grenzshop Andresen GmbH & Co. KG v. Allgemeine                        orders of that court of 19 October 1994 in the case of ( 1 )
                                                                      Radio Torre, (2 ) Rete A Sri, (3 ) Vallau Italiana
  Ortskrankenkasse für den Kreis Schleswig-Flensburg ( ! )
                                                                      Promomarket Sri, (4 ) Radio Italia Solo Musica Sri and
(Social Security for migrant workers — Determination of               Others, ( 5 ) GETE (Tele Nova), ( 6) ToscanaTV and Othres,
                   the legislation applicable)                        and ( 7) Nuova Antenna Tre SpA and Others v. Ministero
                          ( 95/C 74/03 )                                              delle Poste e Telecommunicazioni
                                                                      ( Cases C-328/94, C-329/94, C-337/94, C-338/94 and
                (Language of the case: German)                                        C-339/94, C-21/95 and C-22/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 74/04 )
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
         published in the European Court Reports)                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                      European Communities by orders of the Tribunale
In Case C-425/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177           Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio, Sezione II ( Regional
of the EC Treaty from the Schleswig-Holsteinisches                    Administrative Court, Lazio, Second Chamber) of
Landessozialgericht (Higher Social Court, Schles                     1 9 October 1 994, which were received at the Court Registry
wig-Holstein ) ( Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the             on 12 December and 28 December 1994 and 30 January and
proceedings pending before that court between Calle                   1 February 1995, for a preliminary ruling in the case of ( 1 )
Grenzshop Andresen GmbH & Co. KG and Allgemeine                       Radio Torre ( C-328/94 ), (2 ) Rete A Sri ( C-329/94 ), ( 3 )
Ortskrankenkasse fur den Kreis Schleswig-Flensburg,                   Vallau Italiana Promomarket Sri ( C-337/94 ), (4 ) Radio


title: Case T-367/11: Action brought on 4 July 2011 — Lyder Enterprises v CPVO Liner Plants NZ (1993) (Southern Splendour)

text:
               24.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/28

         Action brought on 4 July 2011 — Lyder Enterprises v CPVO Liner Plants NZ (1993) (Southern Splendour)
   (Case T-367/11)
   2011/C 282/57
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Lyder Enterprises Ltd (Auckland, New Zealand) (represented by: G. Pickering, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Liner Plants NZ (1993) Ltd (Waitakere, New Zealand)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside and annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of the Community Plant Variety Office of 18 February 2011 in case A007/2010; and

               —

               Stay the proceedings until the final decision of the High Court of New Zealand in case No CIV:2011:404:2969 is taken.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for Community plant variety right: The applicant

      Community plant variety right concerned: Southern Splendour — Community plant variety right application No 2006/1888

      Objector to the Community plant variety right application: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Grounds of the objection: The objection was based on the contention that the applicant was not the person who bred, or discovered and developed the variety, or his successor in title

      Decision of the Committee of the CPVO: Refused the application No 2006/1888 for the variety ‘Southern Splendour’ (Decision No R972)

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of the audi alteram partum rule, lack of competence, failure to understand the fundamental rules of natural justice and infringement of an essential procedural requirement, as the Board of Appeal decided that the evidence contained in the applicant’s letters was not acceptable as it was not in affidavit format.


title: Extension of the composition of the Chambers for the judicial year 1994/95

text:
12 . 8 . 95              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 208 / 17
activity carried out as a self-employed person ( travailleur             3 July 1995 by the Council of the European Union,
independant) by a national of a Member State ?                           represented by Jean-Paul Jacque, Director of the Legal
                                                                         Service, and Felix Van Craeyenest and Yves Cretien, Legal
(!) OJ No L 230 , 22 . 8 . 1983 , p . 6 .                                Advisors , acting as Agents , with an address for service in
                                                                         Luxembourg at the office of Bruno Eynard , European
                                                                         Investment Bank, Kirchberg.
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de
Cassation, Commercial, Financial and Economic Chamber,
of the French Republic by judgment of 13 June 1995 in the
      case of Parodi SCI v. Bank H. Albert de Bary et Cie                The applicant claims that the Court should :
                          ( Case C-222/95 )
                             ( 95 /C 208/34 )                            1 . annul the act of the President of the European
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                        Parliament of 26 April 1 995 declaring the final adoption
European Communities by a judgment of the Cour de                             of amending and supplementary budget No 1 1995 ;
Cassation, Commercial, Financial and Economic Chamber,
of the French Republic of 13 June 1995 which was received
at the Court Registry on 26 June 1995 , for a preliminary                2 . consequently, declare that budget, as adopted by the
ruling in the case of Parodi SCI v. Bank H. Albert de Bary et                 European Parliament on the same day, invalid ;
Cie .
The Court of Cassation refers the following question to the
Court of Justice of the European Communities for a                       3 . state that the acts implementing the budget which have
preliminary ruling:                                                           been adopted up until the date when the judgment is
                                                                              delivered are retained in their entirety;
as regards the period preceding the entry into force of
Council Directive 89/646/EEC ( 1 ) of 15 December 1989 on
the coordination of laws , regulations and administrative
provisions relating to the taking up and pursuit of the                  4 . order the European Parliament to pay the costs .
business of credit institutions and amending Directive
77/780/EEC ( 2 ), do Articles 59 and 61 ( 2 ) of the EC Treaty
have to be interpreted as precluding national legislation
requiring a licence in order to supply banking services , in             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
particular in order to grant a mortgage loan, where the bank
concerned is established in another Member State where it
has been granted a licence ?                                             The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
                                                                         relied on in Case C-41 /95 ('). The action concerns only
 (!) OJ No L 386 , 30 . 12 . 1989 , p . 1 .                              budgetary headings Bl-500 (Accompanying measures —
 ( 2 ) OJ No L 322 , 17 . 12 . 1977, p . 30 .
                                                                         former system ), Bl-5010 ( Early retirement ) and Bl-5012
                                                                          ( Afforestation ). The Council maintains that the three
                                                                         headings which the Parliament reclassified by voting under
Action brought on 3 July 1995 by the Council of the                      the budgetary procedure for the adoption of ASB No 1 / 1995
        European Union against the European Parliament                   are in fact compulsory expenditure , because those three
                                                                         headings are covered by the agricultural guideline by virtue
                           ( Case C-230/95 )
                                                                         of Community legislative measures .
                              ( 95/C 208/35 )
 An action against the European Parliament was brought
 before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on               (M OJ No C 87, 8 . 4 . 1995 , p . 6 .
                                                        COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 Extension of the composition of the Chambers for the                     judicial vacation the oath-taking ceremony before the Court
                       judicial year 1994/95                              of Justice for new members of the Court of First Instance
                              ( 95/C 208/36 )                             could not take place until after the judicial vacation and that
                                                                          consequently, in accordance with the third paragraph of
                                                                          Article 5 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice, the third
  At the plenary conference held on 6 July 1995 the Court of              paragraph of Article 5 of the EC Statute of the Court of
  First Instance took formal note of the fact that owing to the           Justice, the third paragraph of Article 5 of the EAEC Statute
 ---pagebreak--- No C 208/ 18              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   12 . 8 . 95
of the Court ofJustice and the third paragraph of Article 5 of           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
the ECSC Statute of the Court of Justice, the decisions of                                        of 8 June 1995
2 June 1994 i 1 ) and 18 January 1995 (2 ) on the designation
of the Presidents of Chambers, the composition of the                   in Case T-7/93 : Langnese-Iglo GmbH v. Commission of the
Chambers and the assignment of cases to them would                                         European Communities ( l )
continue to apply and President of the Court Jose Luis da               (Competition — Exclusive purchasing agreements for
Cruz Vilaça could continue to exercise the presidency of the            ice-cream — Relevant market — Possible barriers to entry to
Court of First Instance .                                               the market by third parties — Trade between Member
                                                                        States — Comfort letter — Block exemption — Lawfulness
(') OJ No C 233 , 20 . 8 . 1994 .                                       of the withdrawal of the exemption — Prohibition of
( 2 ) OJ No C 54, 4 . 3 . 1995 .                                                concluding exclusive agreements in the future)
                                                                                ( 95/C 208/38 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                           of 18 May 1995                               In Case T-7/93 : Langnese-Iglo GmbH, established in
in Case T-478/93 : Wafer Zoo Sri v. Commission of the                   Hamburg ( Germany), represented by Martin Heidenhain,
                    European Communities ( J )                          Bernhard M. Maassen and Horst Satzky, Rechtsanwälte,
                                                                        Frankfurt-am-Main, with an address for service in
(Common agriculturalpolicy — Council Regulation (EEC)
No 866/90 on improving the processing and marketing                     Luxembourg at the chambers of Jean Hoss, 15 Cote d'Eich
conditions for agricultural products — Commission                       v. Commission of the European Communities ( Agents :
Decision 90/342/EEC on the selection criteria to be adopted             Bernd Langeheine and Alexander Böhlke ), supported by
for investments eligible for Community assistance —                     Mars GmbH, established in Viersen ( Germany ), represented
Decision ofthe Commission rejecting a financing project —               by Jochim Sedemund, Rechtsanwalt, Cologne, and by John
                                                                        Pheasant, Solicitor, with an address for service in
               Action for annulment and damages)
                                                                        Luxembourg at the Chambers of Michel Molitor, 14a Rue
                             ( 95/C 208/37 )                            de Bains — application for the annulment of Commission
                                                                        Decision 93/406/EEC of 23 December 1992 relating to a
                  (Language of the case: Italian)                       proceeding pursuant to Article 85 of the EEC Treaty against
                                                                        Langnese-Iglo GmbH ( IV/34.072 ) ( 2 ), the Court of First
In Case T-478/93 : Wafer Zoo Sri, established in Pesaro                 Instance ( Second Chamber, extended composition ),
( Italy ), represented by Wilma Viscardini Dona, of the Padua           composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, D. P. M. Barrington,
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                   A. Saggio, H. Kirschner and A. Kalogeropoulos, Judges; H.
Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8—10 Rue Mathias Hardt, v.                   Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 8 June 1995 , in
                                                                        which it:
Commission of the European Communities ( agents:
Eugenio de March and Alexandre Carnelutti ) —
application, first, for the annulment, pursuant to Article 1 73         1 . annuls Article 4 of Commission Decision 93/406/EEC
of the EC Treaty, of Decision C ( 92 ) 2264 of 30 September                   of 23 December 1 992 relating to a proceeding pursuant
1992, by which the Commission refused the financing of a                      to Article 85 of the EEC Treaty against Langnese-Iglo
project submitted by the applicant under Council                              GmbH (IV/34.072);
Regulation ( EEC ) No 866/90 of 29 March 1990 on
improving the processing and marketing conditions for
agricultural products ( 2 ), and, second, for compensation              2 . for the rest, dismisses the application;
pursuant to Articles 178 and 215 of the EC Treaty for the
damage allegedly caused to the applicant by that decision —
the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber ), composed of:             3 . orders the applicant to bear all the costs of            the
J. L. Cruz Vilaça , President, and H. Kirschner and A.                        proceedings, including those in respect of             the
Kalogeropoulos, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a                       application for interim measures and those of          the
judgment on 18 May 1995 , in which it:                                        intervener, with the exception of one-quarter of       the
                                                                              costs incurred by the defendant;
1 . annuls Decision C (92) 2264 of the Commission of
      30 September 1992;
                                                                        4 . orders the defendant to bear one-quarter of its own
                                                                              costs .
2 . dismisses the claim for damages;
3 . orders the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                        (>) OJ No C 54 , 25 . 2 . 1993 .
                                                                        ( 2 ) OJ No L 183 , 26 . 7. 1993 , p . 19 .
(!) OJ No C 146 , 26 . 5 . 1993 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 91 , 6 . 4 . 1990 .


title: Case T-30/02: Action brought on 13 February 2002 by Wolfgang Leonhardt against the European Parliament

text:
C 109/54                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       4.5.2002
—     order the defendant to pay the costs, expenses and fees.            company that wishes to acquire merchants, i.e. process
                                                                          payments made with a credit card by customers at those
                                                                          merchants’ businesses, must first issue a certain number of
                                                                          credit cards to customers. The applicants specialise in acquiring
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           activities.
The applicant claims that she has suffered non-material                   According to the applicants, the contested decision violates
damage on account of a breach of the principle of sound                   the EC Treaty and the EEA Agreement.
administration and failure to act in good faith and to fulfil the
duty of cooperation as regards the drawing up of her
consecutive staff reports. In addition, according to the appli-           Firstly, the applicants state that the decision lacks adequate
cant, those faults have been repeated time and again and testify          reasoning on why the rule in question does not constitute a
to a vexatious attitude.                                                  significant barrier to trade.
                                                                          The applicants also claim that the Commission erred in law
                                                                          when substituting reasoning under Article 81(3) EC Treaty for
                                                                          reasoning under Article 81(1) EC Treaty. According to the
                                                                          applicants, the pro-competitive and anti-competitive effects of
                                                                          a restriction on competition can only be assessed under
Action brought on 4 February 2002 by First Data Corpor-                   Article 81(3) EC Treaty. In the contested Decision, however,
ation, FDR Limited and First Data Merchant Services                       the Commission seems to argue that the rule in question falls
Corporation against the Commission of the European                        outside the scope of Article 81(1) EC Treaty since its benefits
                            Communities                                   outweigh the restriction on competition. This type of reasoning
                                                                          can, according to the applicants, only be applied under
                           (Case T-28/02)                                 Article 81(3) EC Treaty.
                         (2002/C 109/104)                                 Finally, the applicants claim that the rule in question does
                                                                          restrict competition. The consequence of the rule is that, in
                    (Language of the case: English)                       order to start acquiring activities, a company must first build
                                                                          up banking activities to be able to issue cards to customers.
                                                                          This is, according to the applicants, a barrier to entry into the
                                                                          market of acquiring activities. Furthermore, the applicants
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 point out that the application of this rule is unclear, since the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                number of cards to be issued is dependent on undefined
European Communities on 4 February 2002 by First Data                     criteria. According to the applicants, the Commission should
Corporation, FDR Limited and First Data Merchant Services                 have conducted an investigation on whether this rule is applied
Corporation, represented by Mr Pierre Bos and Mr Morten                   in a uniform and non-discriminatory way.
Nissen of Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Brussels (Belgium).
The applicants claim that the Court should:
—     annul the Commission’s Decision dated 9 August 2001
      relating to proceedings under Article 81 of the EC
      Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case                    Action brought on 13 February 2002 by Wolfgang
      No COMP/29.373 — Visa International) as regards                              Leonhardt against the European Parliament
      Article 1, fifth indent;
                                                                                (Case T-30/02)
—     order that the Commission pay the costs incurred by the
      applicants in the present proceedings.
                                                                                (2002/C 109/105)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                              (Language of the case: French)
The applicants contest the Decision of the Commission that
the ‘no-acquiring-without-issuing rule’ of the Visa Corporation           An action against the European Parliament was brought before
is not an appreciable restriction on trade and therefore falls            the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
outside the scope of Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty and                   13 February 2002 by Wolfgang Leonhardt, residing in La
Article 53 of the EEA Agreement. This rule requires that a                Hulpe (Belgium), represented by H. Tagaras, avocat.
 ---pagebreak--- 4.5.2002              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 109/55
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:            The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     Annul the defendant’s decision of 11 June 2001 to reset            —     annul the decisions taken by the Commission in relation
      at zero the applicant’s tally of promotion points after his              to commencing proceedings before the United States
      promotion in 2000;                                                       District Court for the Eastern District of New York, with
                                                                               Docket Number CV-02-0164, on 9 January 2002, in the
                                                                               name of the European Community against the applicants;
—     Order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                         —     order that the Commission pay the costs of the present
                                                                               proceedings, including those of the applicants and any
                                                                               intervening parties.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant objects to the decision of the European Parlia-
ment to reset at zero the applicant’s stock of promotion points
following his promotion in 2000, thereby preventing the
                                                                         The applicants are the defendants in legal proceedings brought
applicant from carrying over to his new grade the promotion
                                                                         by the European Commission before a United States Court, in
points that he acquired over and above the relevant threshold
                                                                         which it is seeking damages in respect of allegedly unpaid
for promotion.
                                                                         customs duties and VAT, and relief in respect to other
                                                                         economic and non-economic injuries arising therefrom. The
                                                                         payment of these customs duties and VAT has allegedly been
The resetting at zero is the result of a transitional scheme prior       avoided by the smuggling of cigarettes into the European
to the implementation of a new promotion system in the                   Union. This is the third time that the European Commission
European Parliament. Under that transitional scheme the tally            has commenced such proceedings (1). In the current proceed-
of promotion points is automatically reset at zero following             ings, the Commission is also acting as agent for Member States
a promotion, whereas the definitive scheme provides that                 in the recovery of these taxes allegedly owed to them.
promotion points acquired over and above the relevant
threshold are carried over to the new grade.
                                                                         The grounds and arguments are similar to those arising in Case
                                                                         T-260/01 (2).
According to the applicant, the contested decision infringes
Article 45 of the Staff Regulations as well as the principle
prohibiting discrimination.                                              (1) The decision to commence the first proceedings is being contested
                                                                             in Case T-379/00 (OJ C 79 of 10..3.2001) and the decision to
                                                                             commence the second proceedings in Cases T-260/01 and
                                                                             T-272/01 (OJ C 3 of 5.1.2002, p. 39 and p. 45).
                                                                         (2) OJ C 3 of 5.1.2002, p. 39.
Action brought on 15 February 2002 by Japan Tobacco,
Inc. and JT International S.A. against the Commission of
                 the European Communities                                Action brought on 14 February 2002 by José Cuenda
                                                                             Guijarro against the Council of the European Union
                         (Case T-31/02)
                                                                                (Case T-32/02)
                       (2002/C 109/106)
                                                                                (2002/C 109/107)
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               An action against the Council of the European Union was
European Communities on 15 February 2002 by Japan                        brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Tobacco, Inc. and JT International S.A., represented by                  Communities on 14 February 2002 by José Cuenda Guijarro,
Mr Onno W. Brouwer and Mr Paul Lomas of Freshfields                      residing in Brussels, represented by Jean-Noël Louis, lawyer,
Bruckhaus Deringer, London (United Kingdom).                             with an address for service in Luxembourg.


No C 159/20           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   24 . 6 . 95
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura                        Removal from the register of Case C-328/93 ( )
Circondariale di Biella by order of that court of 30 March                                      ( 95/C 159/41 )
1995 in the case of USSL 47 di Biella v. Istituto Nazionale
per l'Assicurazione contro gli Infortuni sul Lavoro ( Inail )
                                                                     By order of 7 April 1995 the President of the Court of Justice
                       ( Case C-134/95 )                             of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
                         ( 95/C 159/39 )                             register of Case C-328/93 ( reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                     from the Arbeitsgericht Munchen ): Carla Baeskow v.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the               Lebenshilfe für geistig Behinderte eV, Stadt- und Landkreis
European Communities by order of the Pretura                         Munchen .
Circondariale ( District Magistrate's Court), Biella, of
30 March 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry
on 24 April 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of           (M OJ No C 205 , 29 . 7. 1993 .
USSL 47 di Biella v. Istituto Nazionale per l'Assicurazione
contro gli Infortuni sul Lavoro (Inail ) on the following
questions :
Is Article 1(1 ) of Law No 1369 of 23 October 1960, read in
conjunction with Article 11 ( 1 ) of Law No 264 of
29 October 1949 , compatible with the Community
principles laid down in Articles 48 , 49 , 54 and 90 of the EC              Removal from the register of Case C-402/93 ( )
Treaty and do those principles have direct effect, with the                                        95/C 159/42 )
result that the Italian legislation has to be set aside ?
                                                                     By order of 3 April 1995 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                     of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
                                                                     register of Case C-402/93 ( reference for a preliminary ruling
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura                  from the Arbeitsgericht Hamburg): Jutta Neumann v. Freie
Circondariale di Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli, by              und Hansestadt Hamburg.
orders of that court of 26 October 1994 (C-135/95 ) and
27 February 1995 ( C-140/95 and C-141/95 ) in criminal               (^ OJ No C 286 , 22 . 10 . 1993 .
proceedings pending before it against Francesco Segna and
        Others, Cesare Cervetti and Mario Gasbarri
         (Cases C-135/95 , C-140/95 and C-141 /95 )
                          ( 95/C 159/40 )
References have been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by orders of the Pretura
Circondariale di Roma , Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome                 Removal from the register of Case C-229/94 H
District Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division ) of 26 October
                                                                                ( 95/C 159/43 )
1994 ( C-135/95 ) and 27 February 1995 ( C-140/95 and
C-141 /95 ), which were received at the Court Registry on
24 April 1995 and 4 May 1995 respectively, for a                      By order of 5 May 1995 the President of the Court of Justice
preliminary ruling in criminal proceedings pending before it         of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
against Francesco Segna and Others, Cesare Cervetti and              register of Case C-229/34 ( reference for a preliminary ruling
Mario Gasbarri on questions identical with those referred in          from the High Court ( Queen's Bench Division)): The Queen
Cases C-112/95 , C-119/95 and C-123/95 ( M.                           v . Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte:
                                                                      Gerard Adams ).
(M OJ No C 137, 3 . 6 . 1995 .
                                                                      (') OJ No C 275 , 1 . 10 . 1994 .


title: Judgment of the Court (Full Chamber) of 27 April 2004 in Case C-159/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the House of Lords): Gregory Paul Turner v Felix Fareed Ismail Grovit, Harada Ltd and Changepoint SA (Brussels Convention — Proceedings brought in a Contracting State — Proceedings brought in another Contracting State by the defendant in the existing proceedings — Defendant acting in bad faith in order to frustrate the existing proceedings — Compatibility with the Brussels Convention of the grant of an injunction preventing the defendant from continuing the action in another Member State)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/21

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Full Chamber)
   of 27 April 2004
   in Case C-159/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the House of Lords): Gregory Paul Turner v Felix Fareed Ismail Grovit, Harada Ltd and Changepoint SA (1)

   (Brussels Convention - Proceedings brought in a Contracting State - Proceedings brought in another Contracting State by the defendant in the existing proceedings - Defendant acting in bad faith in order to frustrate the existing proceedings - Compatibility with the Brussels Convention of the grant of an injunction preventing the defendant from continuing the action in another Member State)
   (2004/C 118/37)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case C-159/02: reference to the Court under the Protocol of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters by the House of Lords (United Kingdom) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Gregory Paul Turner and Felix Fareed Ismail Grovit, Harada Ltd and Changepoint SA  — on the interpretation of the abovementioned Convention of 27 September 1968 (OJ 1972 L 299, p. 32), as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 1, and – amended version – p. 77), by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic Republic (OJ 1982 L 388, p. 1) and by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic (OJ 1989 L 285, p. 1) — the Court, composed of: V. Skouris, President, P. Jann (Rapporteur), C.W.A. Timmermans, C. Gulmann, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and A. Rosas, Presidents of Chambers, A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen, N. Colneric and S. von Bahr, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 27 April 2004, in which it has ruled:
   The Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the accession of the Hellenic Republic and by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic, is to be interpreted as precluding the grant of an injunction whereby a court of a Contracting State prohibits a party to proceedings pending before it from commencing or continuing legal proceedings before a court of another Contracting State, even where that party is acting in bad faith with a view to frustrating the existing proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 169, 13.7.2002.


title: Case T-586/08: Action brought on 24 December 2008 — Kerma v OHIM (BIOPIETRA)

text:
               7.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/45

         Action brought on 24 December 2008 — Kerma v OHIM (BIOPIETRA)
   (Case T-586/08)
   (2009/C 55/80)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Kerma SpA (Puegnago sul Garda, Italy) (represented by A. Manzoni, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that the trade mark BIOPIETRO conforms with Article 4 of the Trade Mark Regulation and is not devoid of any distinctive character within the meaning of Article 7(1)(b) of that regulation;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs in the event of its being unsuccessful.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘BIOPIETRA’ (application for registration No 5.658.893), for goods in Class 19.

      Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application for registration.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Rejection of the appeal.

      Pleas in law: Infringement and incorrect application of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark.


title: Case C-9/09: Action brought on 9 January 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/25

         Action brought on 9 January 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-9/09)
   (2009/C 69/46)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Cattabriga and J. Sénéchal, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by not adopting all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on setting standards of quality and safety for the donation, procurement, testing, processing, preservation, storage and distribution of human tissues and cells (1) or, in any case, by not communicating them to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The deadline for transposition of Directive 2004/23/EC expired on 7 April 2006. When this action was brought, the defendant had not yet adopted all the measures necessary to transpose the directive or, in any case, had not communicated them to the Commission.

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 102, p. 48.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber) of 16 November 1995 in Case C-196/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Judicial Committee of the Conseil d'État, Luxembourg): Catherine Schiltz-Thilmann v. Minister for Agriculture (Preliminary reference - Interpretation of Article 5 (c) of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 of the Council of 27 June 1968 on the common organization of the market in milk and milk products - Additional levy - Reference quantity - Exceeded)

text:
20 . 1 . 96            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 16/5
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                   other, in order to determine whether there has been
                       ( Second Chamber)                               over-production at national level.
                    of 16 November 1995
                                                                       (>) OJ No C 233 , 20 . 8 . 1994 .
in Case C- 1 96/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling
made by the Judicial Committee of the Conseil d'État,
Luxembourg): Catherine Schiltz-Thilmann v. Minister for
                          Agriculture i 1 )
(Preliminary reference — Interpretation of Article S (c) of            Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerisches
Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 of the Council of 27 June                   Verwaltungsgericht Miinchen by order of that court of
1968 on the common organization ofthe market in milk and               14 June 1995 in the case of Selma Kadiman v. Freistaat
milk products — Additional levy — Reference quantity —                                                  Bayern
                             Exceeded)                                                          ( Case C-351/95 )
                           ( 96/C 16/09 )                                                           ( 96/C 16/10.)
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by an order of the Seventh
                (Language of the case: French)                         Chamber of the Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht Miinchen
                                                                       ( Administrative Court of Bavaria, Munich ) of 14 June 1995 ,
                                                                       which was received at the Court Registry on 13 November
                                                                       1 995, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Selma Kadiman
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be           v. Freistaat Bayern on the following questions:
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                       1 . does the applicability of the first sentence of Article 7 of
                                                                             Decision No 1/80 of the EEC/Turkey Association
In Case C- 1 96/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                             Council on the development of the Association
                                                                              ('Decision No 1/80 ') presuppose that the family must
of the EC Treaty by the Judicial Committee of the Conseil                    still be living together at the time when the other
d'État, Luxembourg, for a preliminary ruling in the                          conditions are fulfilled ?
proceedings pending before that court between Catherine
Schiltz-Thilmann and the Minister of Agriculture — on
the interpretation of Article 5 ( c ) of Regulation ( EEC )            2 . Does the applicability of the first indent of the first
No 804/68 of the Council of 27 June 1968 on the common                        sentence of Article 7 of Decision No 1 /80 presuppose
organization of the market in milk and milk products ( OJ,                   three years' uninterrupted legal residence in a Member
English Special Edition 1968 (I), p. 176 ), as amended by                     State of the Community ?
Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 856/84 ( OJ No L 90, p. 10 )
and Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1298/85 ( OJ No L 137,               3 . Is a voluntary or forced intermediate stay of five months
p . 5 ), and Article 6 ( a ) of Council Regulation ( EEC )                    in Turkey to be counted towards the period of three
No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting general rules for the                     years' legal residence within the meaning of the first
                                                                              indent of the first sentence of Article 7 of Decision
application of the levy referred to in Article 5 ( c ) of
                                                                              No 1 /80 ?
Regulation ( EEC ) No 804/68 in the milk and milk products
sector ( OJ No L 90, p. 13 ), as amended by Council
Regulation ( EEC ) No 590/85 ( OJ No L 68 , p. 1 ) — the
Court ( Second Chamber ), composed of: G. Hirsch,
President of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini ( Rapporteur ) and
F. A. Schockweiler, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate-General;               Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 16 November 1995 ,             Schleswig-Holsteinisches Oberverwaltungsgericht, by order
the operative part of which is as follows:                             of that court of 27 October 1995 , in the case of Matthias
                                                                                Witt v. Amt fiir Land- und Wasserwirtschaft
                                                                                ( Case C-356/95 )
Article 6 (a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 of                                               ( 96/C 16/11 )
3 1 March 1 984 adopting general rules for the application of
the levy referred to in Article 5 (c) of Regulation (EEC)              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of
No 804/68 in the milk and milk products sector, as amended             the European Communities by an order of the
 by Council Regulation (EEC) No 590/85 of 26 February                   Schleswig-Holsteinisches Oberverwaltungsgericht (Higher
 1985, and Article 5 (c) (7) of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68             Administrative Court of the Land Schleswig-Holstein ),
 ofthe Council of27June 1968 on the common organization                Third Chamber, of 27 October 1995 , which was received at
 of the market in milk and milk products, as amended by                 the Court Registry on 21 November 1995 , for a preliminary
 Council Regulation (EEC) No 856/84 of 31 March 1984                    ruling in the case of Matthias Witt v . Amt fur Land- und
and subsequently by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1298/85                 Wasserwirtschaft on the following questions:
 of 23 May 1985, are to be interpreted as meaning that they
 do not allow aggregation of the reference quantities for               ( a ) Is   a   Member         State  entitled, under  the  first
 direct sales and for deliveries, which are independent ofeach                 subparagraph of Article 3 ( 1 ) of Council Regulation


title: Case T-321/15: Action brought on 22 June 2015 — GSA and SGI Security v Parliament

text:
               10.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/36

         Action brought on 22 June 2015 — GSA and SGI Security v Parliament
   (Case T-321/15)
   (2015/C 262/49)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Gruppo Servizi Associati SpA (GSA) (Rome, Italy) and Security Guardian’s Institute (SGI Security) (Bierges, Belgium) (represented by: E. van Nuffel d’Heynsbroeck, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the Parliament’s decision notified on 12 June 2015 declaring non-compliant the tender submitted by Gruppo Servizi Associati s.p.a. and Security Guardian’s Institute s.a. in respect of the tendering procedure for service contract EP/DGSAFE/UIB/SER/2014-014 for the provision of fire security, assistance to persons and external surveillance at the European Parliament's site in Brussels, and its decision to award the contract to another tenderer;

               —

               order the Parliament to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea, alleging infringement of the principles of proportionality and equal treatment, in so far as the Parliament unjustifiably required all of the members of the consortium to hold an authorisation pursuant to the Law of 10 April 1990 regulating private and special security services, thereby imposing the requirement on members of the consortium who would not provide services subject to that law.

               2.

               Second plea, submitted in the alternative, alleging infringement of the freedom to provide services and the underlying principles of equal treatment and proportionality, in so far as the requirement to hold an authorisation pursuant to the Law of 10 April 1990 made it excessively difficult, or even impossible, for a company which provides a service that is not subject to that law to participate in the contract award procedure.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 October 2001 in Case T-155/99: Dieckmann & Hansen GmbH v Commission of the European Communities (Common Agricultural Policy — Decision 1999/244/EC amending Decision 97/296/EC drawing up the list of third countries from which the import of fishery products is authorised for human consumption — Non-contractual liability of the Community)

text:
2.2.2002               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 31/7
                                                          COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                      of 22 November 2001                                                         of 23 October 2001
in Case T-9/98: Mitteldeutsche Erdoel-Raffinerie GmbH v
        Commission of the European Communities (1)                         in Case T-155/99: Dieckmann & Hansen GmbH v Com-
                                                                                mission of the European Communities (1)
(State aid — Extension of the period for completion of
investment projects qualifying for a premium — General aid
scheme — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Act of                     (Common Agricultural Policy — Decision 1999/244/EC
direct and individual concern to the applicant — Interest in               amending Decision 97/296/EC drawing up the list of third
bringing proceedings — Additional aid — Investment aid or                  countries from which the import of fishery products is
         operating aid — Principle of proportionality)                     authorised for human consumption — Non-contractual
                                                                                liability of the Community)
                          (2002/C 31/12)
                                                                                (2002/C 31/13)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
In Case T-9/98: Mitteldeutsche Erdoel-Raffinerie GmbH, estab-
lished in Spergau, Germany, represented initially by M. Schütte
and M. Maier, lawyers, and subsequently by Mr Schütte and
J. Lüdicke, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg,             In Case T-155/99: Dieckmann & Hansen GmbH, established
against Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                    in Hamburg (Germany), represented by H.J. Rabe, lawyer, with
V. Kreuschitz and P. Nemitz) — application for annulment                   an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of
of Commission Decision 98/194/EC of 1 October 1997                         the European Communities (Agents: M. Niejahr and G. Ber-
concerning the extension of the 8 % investment premium for                 scheid) — application for, first, annulment of Commission
investment projects in the new Länder pursuant to the Finance              Decision 1999/244/EC of 26 March 1999 amending Decision
Law 1996 (OJ 1998 L 73, p. 38) — the Court of First Instance               97/296/EC drawing up the list of third countries from which
(Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of P. Lindh,               the import of fishery products is authorised for human
President, R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas, J.D. Cooke, M. Vilaras and               consumption (OJ 1999 L 91, p. 37) and, secondly, damages
N.J. Forwood, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the               for loss allegedly suffered by the applicant — the Court of First
Registrar, has given a judgment on 22 November 2001, in                    Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of P. Lindh, President,
which it:                                                                  R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas and J.D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio Gonzá-
                                                                           lez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                           23 October 2001, in which it:
1.    Annuls Commission Decision 98/194/EC of 1 October 1997
      concerning the extension of the 8% investment premium for
      investment projects in the new Länder pursuant to the Finance        1.    Dismisses the application;
      Law 1996 in so far as it concerns the situation of the applicant;
                                                                           2.    Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and those of the
2.    Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those               Commission.
      incurred by the applicant.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.99.
(1) OJ C 72 of 7.3.98.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 15 April 1997 in Case C-27/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice): Woodspring District Council v. Bakers of Nailsea Ltd (Ante-mortem health inspections in slaughterhouses - Validity - Role of official veterinarians - Charges passed on to slaughterhouse operators)

text:
No C 166/2            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     31 . 5 . 97
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     (3) of the EC Treaty or to the general principles of
                        ( Sixth Chamber)                                 equal treatment and/or proportionality.
                       of 15 April 1997                             (') OJ No C 101 , 22 . 4 . 1995 .
in Case C-27/95 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
the High Court of Justice ): Woodspring District Council v.
                    Bakers of Nailsea Ltd (')
(Ante-mortem health inspections in slaughterhouses —
Validity — Role of official veterinarians — Charges passed                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                on to slaughterhouse operators)                                             (Fourth Chamber)
                           97/C 166/02 )                                                     of 15 April 1997
                                                                    in Case C-105/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                    the Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-West
                (Language of the case: English)                     falen, Münster): Paul Daut GmbH &c Co. KG v. Ober
                                                                                kreisdirektor des Kreises Gütersloh (')
                                                                    (Mechanically recovered meat — Heat treatment —
In Case C-27/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177          Health conditions for production and marketing — Intra
of the EC Treaty from the High Court of Justice ( Bristol                                   Community trade)
Mercantile Court, United Kingdom ), for a preliminary
                                                                                ( 971C 166/03 )
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
between Woodspring District Council and Bakers of                                  (Language of the case: German)
Nailsea Ltd — on the validity of Council Directive 64/
433/EEC of 26 June 1964 on health problems affecting
intra-Community trade in fresh meat ( OJ, English Special             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
Edition 1963—1964, p. 185 ), as amended and                                   published in the European Court Reports)
consolidated by Council Directive 91 /497/EEC of 29 July
1991 ( OJ No L 268 , 1991 , p. 69 ), having regard to               In Case C- 105/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
Articles 39 and 40 ( 3 ) of the EC Treaty and the general           of the EC Treaty from the Oberverwaltungsgericht fur das
principles of proportionality and non-discrimination, —             Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (Higher Administrative Court,
the Court ( Sixth Chamber), composed of: J. L. Murray               North Rhine Westphalia ), Miinster ( Germany), for a
( Rapporteur), President of the Fourth Chamber, acting as           preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
President of the Sixth Chamber, C. N. Kakouris, P. J. G.            court between Paul Daut GmbH & Co . KG and
Kapteyn, G. Hirsch and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; A. La                  Oberkreisdirektor des Kreises Giitersloh — on the
Pergola, Advocate-General; H. von Holstein, Deputy                  interpretation of Council Directive 64/43 3/EEC of 26 June
Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on               1964 on health problems affecting intra-Community trade
15 April 1997, in which it has ruled:                               in fresh meat ( OJ, English Special Edition 1963—1964,
                                                                    p. 185 ), as amended and consolidated by Council
                                                                    Directive 91 /497/EEC of 29 July 1991 ( OJ No L 268 ,
 1 . A private individual may plead in proceedings before a          1991 , p. 69 ), Council Directive 89/608/EEC of
                                                                    21 November 1989 on mutual assistance between the
     national court an infringement of Articles 39 and 40           administrative authorities of the Member States and
     (3) of the EC Treaty and of the general principles of
     proportionality and non-discrimination in order to             cooperation between the latter and the Commission to
     challenge the validity of an act of the Community              ensure the correct application of legislation on veterinary
     institutions .                                                 and zootechnical matters ( OJ No L 351 , 1989, p. 34 ), and
                                                                    Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty — the Court ( Fourth
                                                                    Chamber), composed of: C. N. Kakouris ( Rapporteur ),
                                                                    acting as President of the Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn and
2 . Council Directive 64/433/EEC of 26 June 1964 on                 H. Ragnemalm, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,
     health problems affecting intra-Community trade in             Advocate-General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal
     fresh meat, as amended and consolidated by Council             Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
     Directive 91 /497/EEC of 29 July 1991 , is not invalid          15 April 1997, in which it has ruled:
     having regard to Articles 39 and 40 (3) of the EC
     Treaty and the general principle of proportionality, in         I. Article 6 (1 ) (c) and (g) of Council Directive 64/433/
     so far as it requires and/or permits Member States to               EEC of 26 June 1964 on health problems affecting
     require health inspections at slaughterhouses to be                 intra-Community trade in fresh meat, as amended and
     carried out by official veterinarians and/or in so far as           consolidated by Council Directive 91 /497/EEC of
     it requires ante-mortem inspections to be carried out.              29 July 1991 , preclude national rules that prohibit the
                                                                         import of mechanically recovered meat which has not
                                                                         been subjected to heat treatment in the Member State
 3 . The obligation under Directive 64/433 for the costs of              of origin but is intended to be subjected to such
     health inspections by official veterinarians to be borne            treatment in an approved establishment in the Member
     by the slaughterhouse at which the animals are to be                State of importation designated by the official
     slaughtered is not contrary either to Articles 39 and 40            veterinarian in the State of origin.


title: Case C-190/08: Order of the President of the Court of 25 November 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/33

         Order of the President of the Court of 25 November 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands
   (Case C-190/08) (1)

   (2009/C 69/73)

      Language of the case: Dutch

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

      (1)  OJ C 171, 5.7.2008.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of  20 October 2005  in Case C-334/03: Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 90/388/EEC — Telecommunications — Article 4d — Rights of way — Lack of a guarantee of non-discrimination in the grant of rights of way — Non-transposition)

text:
               24.12.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 330/3

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 20 October 2005
   in Case C-334/03: Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 90/388/EEC - Telecommunications - Article 4d - Rights of way - Lack of a guarantee of non-discrimination in the grant of rights of way - Non-transposition)
   (2005/C 330/05)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   In Case C-334/03 Commission of the European Communities (Agents: A. Alves Vieira, S. Rating and G. Braga da Cruz) v Portuguese Republic (Agents: L. Fernandes and P. de Pitta e Cunha) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 30 July 2003 — the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, K. Schiemann, N. Colneric (Rapporteur), J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and E. Levits, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 20 October 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to ensure the transposition of Article 4d of Commission Directive 90/388/EEC of 28 June 1990 on competition in the markets for telecommunications services, as amended by Commission Directive 96/19/EC of 13 March 1996, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations;

               2.

               Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 251, de 18.10.2003.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 December 2003 in Case C-289/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München): AMOK Verlags GmbH v A & R Gastronomie GmbH (Freedom to provide services — Lawyer established in one Member State working in conjunction with a lawyer established in another Member State — Legal costs to be reimbursed by the unsuccessful party in a dispute to the successful party Limitation)

text:
21.2.2004                 EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                    C 47/9
Bench Division (Administrative Court), for a preliminary ruling                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
in the proceedings pending before that court between The
Queen on the application of Delena Wells and Secretary of
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, on
the interpretation of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June
1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public                                                of 11 December 2003
and private projects on the environment, the Court (Fifth
Chamber), composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur), acting for the
President of the Fifth Chamber, D.A.O. Edward and A. La                        in Case C-289/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
Pergola, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Princi-               the Oberlandesgericht München): AMOK Verlags GmbH
pal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                                   v A & R Gastronomie GmbH (1)
7 January 2004, in which it has ruled:
                                                                               (Freedom to provide services — Lawyer established in
                                                                               one Member State working in conjunction with a lawyer
1.    Article 2(1) of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June                  established in another Member State — Legal costs to be
      1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and              reimbursed by the unsuccessful party in a dispute to the
      private projects on the environment, read in conjunction with                                successful party Limitation)
      Article 4(2) thereof, is to be interpreted as meaning that, in the
      context of applying provisions such as section 22 of the
      Planning and Compensation Act 1991 and Schedule 2 to that                                             (2004/C 47/15)
      Act, the decisions adopted by the competent authorities, whose
      effect is to permit the resumption of mining operations,                                     (Language of the case: German)
      comprise, as a whole, a ‘development consent’ within the
      meaning of Article 1(2) of that directive, so that the competent
      authorities are obliged, where appropriate, to carry out an              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
      assessment of the environmental effects of such operations.                                   in the European Court Reports)
      In a consent procedure comprising several stages, that assess-
      ment must, in principle, be carried out as soon as it is possible
      to identify and assess all the effects which the project may have        In Case C-289/02: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
      on the environment.                                                      by the Oberlandesgericht München (Germany) for a prelimi-
                                                                               nary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
2.    In circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, an               between AMOK Verlags GmbH and A & R Gastronomie
      individual may, where appropriate, rely on Article 2(1) of               GmbH, on the interpretation of Articles 12 EC and 49 EC, the
      Directive 85/337, read in conjunction with Articles 1(2) and             Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur),
      4(2) thereof.                                                            acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber, A. La Pergola
                                                                               and S. von Bahr, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; M.-
                                                                               F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
3.    Under Article 10 EC the competent authorities are obliged to
                                                                               a judgment on 11 December 2003, in which it has ruled:
      take, within the sphere of their competence, all general or
      particular measures for remedying the failure to carry out an
      assessment of the environmental effects of a project as provided         1.    Article 49 EC, Article 50 EC and Council Directive 77/249/
      for in Article 2(1) of Directive 85/337.                                       EEC of 22 March 1977 to facilitate the effective exercise by
                                                                                lawyers of freedom to provide services must be interpreted as not
      The detailed procedural rules applicable in that context are a                 precluding a judicial rule of a Member State limiting to the
      matter for the domestic legal order of each Member State, under                level of the fees which would have resulted from representation
      the principle of procedural autonomy of the Member States,                     by a lawyer established in that State the reimbursement, by an
      provided that they are not less favourable than those governing                unsuccessful party in a dispute to the successful party, of costs
      similar domestic situations (principle of equivalence) and that                in respect of the services provided by a lawyer established in
      they do not render impossible in practice or excessively difficult             another Member State.
      the exercise of rights conferred by the Community legal order
      (principle of effectiveness).                                            2.    Article 49 EC and Directive 77/249 must, however, be
                                                                                construed as precluding a judicial rule of a Member State which
      In that regard, it is for the national court to determine whether
                                                                                provides that the successful party to a dispute, in which that
      it is possible under domestic law for a consent already granted
                                                                                party has been represented by a lawyer established in another
      to be revoked or suspended in order to subject the project to an
                                                                                Member State, cannot recover from the unsuccessful party, in
      assessment of its environmental effects, in accordance with the
                                                                                addition to the fees of that lawyer, the fees of a lawyer practising
      requirements of Directive 85/337, or alternatively, if the
                                                                                before the court seised of the dispute who, under the national
      individual so agrees, whether it is possible for the latter to claim
                                                                                legislation in question, was required to work in conjunction
      compensation for the harm suffered.
                                                                                with the first lawyer.
(1) OJ C 180 of 27.7.2002.                                                     (1) OJ C 261 of 26.10.2002.


title: Case C-286/08: Action brought on 30 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/33

         Action brought on 30 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-286/08)
   (2008/C 223/51)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Patakia and J.-B. Laignelot)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to draw up and adopt within a reasonable period a hazardous-waste management plan that accords with the requirements of the relevant Community legislation, and by failing to establish an integrated and adequate network of disposal installations for hazardous waste that enables such waste to be disposed of by means of the most appropriate methods in order to ensure a high level of protection for the environment and public health, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 1(2) and 6 of Directive 91/689/EEC (1) on hazardous waste, in conjunction with Articles 5(1) and (2) and 7(1) of Directive 2006/12/EC (2) (formerly Directive 75/442/EEC on waste, as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC);

               —

               declare that, by failing to take all the necessary measures to ensure, as regards the management of hazardous waste, compliance with Articles 4 and 8 of Directive 2006/12/EC (formerly Directive 75/442/EEC, as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC) and Articles 3(1), 6, 7, 8, 9, 13 and 14 of Directive 1999/31/EC (3) on the landfill of waste, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 1(2) of Directive 91/689/EEC on hazardous waste, in conjunction with Articles 4 and 8 of Directive 2006/12/EC (formerly Directive 75/442/EEC on waste, as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC), and its obligations under Articles 3(1), 6, 7, 8, 9, 13 and 14 of Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste;

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   After examining the legislative measures notified by the Hellenic Republic relating to the management of hazardous waste, and in particular the National Management Plan, the Commission found that they did not meet the requirements of the Community provisions relating to the management of hazardous waste.
   More specifically, the National Management Plan is deficient since it merely contains guidelines which require further elaboration and do not meet the requirement of ‘sufficient precision’, in breach of Articles 1(2) and 6(1) of Directive 91/689/EEC, in conjunction with Article 7(1) of Directive 2006/12/EC (formerly Directive 75/442/EEC).
   Also, the National Management Plan does not provide for an integrated and adequate network of disposal installations, because adequate infrastructure is lacking, there are no assessments relating to the required level of operational capacity and there are deficiencies relating to the establishment and geographical location of appropriate sites, in breach of Article 1(2) of Directive 91/689/EEC, in conjunction with Article 5 of Directive 2006/12/EC (formerly Directive 75/442/EEC).
   Furthermore, it has been established that the disposal of hazardous waste in Greece is in practice usually in the form of ‘temporary storage’, which however, because the relevant permits are renewed in the absence of appropriate landfill sites, has become permanent. It follows that appropriate measures have not been taken for the safe final disposal of hazardous waste without endangering human health and without harming the environment, in breach of Article 1(2) of Directive 91/689/EEC, in conjunction with Articles 4 and 8 of Directive 2006/12/EC (formerly Directive 75/442/EEC), and of Articles 3(1), 6, 7, 8, 9, 13 and 14 of Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste.

      (1)  OJ L 377, 31.12.1991, p. 20.

      (2)  OJ L 114, 27.4.2006, p. 9.

      (3)  OJ L 182, 16.7.1999, p. 1.


title: Case T-454/09 P: Order of the General Court of 28 June 2011 — van Arum v Parliament (Appeals — Staff Cases — Officials — Reports — Staff report — Reporting exercise for 2005 — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

text:
               24.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/18

         Order of the General Court of 28 June 2011 — van Arum v Parliament
   (Case T-454/09 P) (1)

   (Appeals - Staff Cases - Officials - Reports - Staff report - Reporting exercise for 2005 - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)
   2011/C 282/35
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Appellant: Rinse van Arum (Winksele, Belgium) (represented by: W. van den Muijsenbergh, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: J. F. de Wachter, K. Zejdová et R. Ignătescu, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 10 September 2009 in Case F-139/07 van Arum v Parliament ECR-SC I-A-1-0000 and II-A-1-0000, seeking to have that judgment set aside.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Rinse van Arum is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament in these proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 37, 13.2.2010.


C 289/22              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 13.10.2001
                                                     COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
   Election of the President of the Court of First Instance           b)  to assign the Members of the Court of First Instance
                                                                          to Chambers as follows:
                        (2001/C 289/56)
                                                                           to the First Chamber:
The Judges of the Court of First Instance, meeting on 19 Sep-
tember 2001, elected Judge Bo Vesterdorf as President of the
Court of First Instance, pursuant to Article 7 of the Rules of             Mr Vesterdorf (President), Mr Forwood and Mr Legal,
Procedure, for the period from 19 September 2001 to                        Judges;
31 August 2004.
                                                                           to the First Chamber, Extended Composition:
                                                                           Mr Vesterdorf (President), Mr Lenaerts, Mr Azizi, Mr For-
                                                                           wood and Mr Legal, Judges;
                                                                           to the Second Chamber:
Appointment of the Registrar of the Court of First
                            Instance                                       Mr Moura Ramos (President of Chamber), Mr Pirrung and
                                                                           Mr Meij, Judges;
                        (2001/C 289/57)
                                                                           to the Second Chamber, Extended Composition:
At its meeting on 19 September 2001 the Court of First
Instance appointed Hans Jung as Registrar of the Court of                  Mr Moura Ramos (President of Chamber), Ms Tiili,
First Instance, pursuant to Article 20 in conjunction with                 Mr Pirrung, Mr Mengozzi and Mr Meij, Judges;
Article 7(3) of the Rules of Procedure, for the period from
27 September 2001 to 26 September 2007.                                    to the Third Chamber:
                                                                           Mr Jaeger (President of Chamber), Mr Lenaerts and
                                                                           Mr Azizi, Judges;
                                                                           to the Third Chamber, Extended Composition:
Designation of Presidents of Chambers and assignment of                    Mr Jaeger (President of Chamber), Mr Garcı́a-Valdecasas,
                     Judges to Chambers                                    Mr Lenaerts, Ms Lindh and Mr Azizi, Judges;
                        (2001/C 289/58)                                    to the Fourth Chamber:
                                                                           Mr Vilaras (President of Chamber), Ms Tiili and Mr Men-
At its plenary conference held on 20 September 2001 the                    gozzi, Judges;
Court of First Instance decided, pursuant to Article 2(4) of the
Council Decision of 24 October 1988 and Articles 10 and 15
of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, in               to the Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition:
respect of the period from 20 September 2001 to 30 Septem-
ber 2002:                                                                  Mr Vilaras (President of Chamber), Ms Tiili, Mr Pirrung,
                                                                           Mr Mengozzi and Mr Meij, Judges;
a)    to designate as Presidents of Chambers:                              to the Fifth Chamber:
      —    Judge Moura Ramos                                               Mr Cooke (President of Chamber), Mr Garcı́a-Valdecasas
                                                                           and Ms Lindh, Judges;
      —    Judge Cooke
                                                                           to the Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition:
      —    Judge Jaeger
                                                                           Mr Cooke (President of Chamber), Mr Garcı́a-Valdecasas,
      —    Judge Vilaras                                                   Ms Lindh, Mr Forwood and Mr Legal, Judges.


title: Case T-20/16: Judgment of the General Court of 21 June 2017 — M/S. Indeutsch International v EUIPO — Crafts Americana Group (Representation of chevrons between two parallel lines) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark representing chevrons between two parallel lines — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Examination of the mark as registered)

text:
               7.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/22

         Judgment of the General Court of 21 June 2017 — M/S. Indeutsch International v EUIPO — Crafts Americana Group (Representation of chevrons between two parallel lines)
   (Case T-20/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark representing chevrons between two parallel lines - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Examination of the mark as registered))
   (2017/C 256/23)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: M/S. Indeutsch International (Noida, India) (represented initially by D. Stone, D. Meale, A. Dykes, Solicitors, and S. Malynicz QC, subsequently by D. Stone and S. Malynicz and lastly by D. Stone, S. Malynicz and M. Siddiqui, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Gája, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: Crafts Americana Group, Inc. (Vancouver, Washington, United States) (represented by: J. Fish and V. Leitch, Solicitors and A. Bryson, Barrister)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 November 2015 (Case R 1814/2014-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Crafts Americana Group and M/S. Indeutsch International.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 5 November 2015 (Case R 1814/2014-1);

               2.

               Orders EUIPO to pay the costs of M/S. Indeutsch International;

               3.

               Orders Crafts Americana Group, Inc. to pay its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 106, 21.3.2016.