title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber) of 8 February 1996 in Case C-8/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandse Raad van State): C. B. Laperre v. Bestuurscommissie Beroepszaken in de Provincie Zuid-Holland (Equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security - Article 4 (1) of Directive 79/7/EEC - Statutory scheme of social assistance for older and/or partially incapacitated workers who are long-term unemployed - Conditions relating to previous employment and age)

text:
  30 . 3 . 96           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 95/ 1
                                                                      I
                                                                (Information)
                                                COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                             COURT OF JUSTICE
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     is awarded and, consequently, only persons possessing that
                         ( Sixth Chamber )                                higher-education diploma as a rule seek employment in, and
                                                                         pursue, that profession.
                       of 1 February 1996
 in Case C-164/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                (') OJ No C 218 , 6 . 8 . 1994 .
 the Oberverwaltungsgericht Berlin ): Georgios Aranitis v.
                           Land Berlin ()
 (General system for the recognition of higher-education
 diplomas — Conditions: indirectly imposed by national
                 rules — Regulated profession)                                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            ( 96/C 95/01 )                                                       (Fourth Chamber)
                (Language of the case: German)                                                  of 8 February 1996
                                                                         in Case C-8/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
           published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                         the Nederlandse Raad van State ): C. B. Laperre v.
                                                                               Bestuurscommissie Beroepszaken in de Provincie
In Case C-164/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177                                        Zuid-Holland ( 1 )
of the EC Treaty by the Oberverwaltungsgericht Berlin for a               (Equal treatment for men and women in matters of social
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                security — Article 4 (1) ofDirective 79/7/EEC — Statutory
court between Georgios Aranitis and Land Berlin on the                   scheme of social assistance for older and/or partially
interpretation of Articles 1 ( c ) and ( d ) and 7 ( 1 ) of Council      incapacitated workers who are long-term unemployed —
Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general                         Conditions relating to previous employment and age)
system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas                                              ( 96/C 95/02 )
awarded on completion of professional education and
training of at least three years ' duration ( OJ No L 19 ,                                 (Language of the case: Dutch)
 1989 , p. 16 ), the Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed
of: D. N. Kakouris, President of the Chamber,
F. A. Schockweiler, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
( Rapporteur ) and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; P. Leger,                                published in the European Court Reports)
Advocate-General ; D. Loutermann-Hubeau , Principal
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment in                In Case C-8/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177 of
which it ruled that:                                                     the EC Treaty from the Nederlandse Raad van State ( State
                                                                         Council of the Netherlands ) for a preliminary ruling in the
Article 1 (c) in conjunction with Article 1 (d) of Council               proceedings pending before that court between C. B.
Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general                     Laperre and Bestuurscommissie Beroepszaken in de
system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas                  Provincie Zuid-Holland — on the interpretation of
awarded on completion of professional education and                      Article 4 ( 1 ) of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December
training of at least three years ' duration must be interpreted          1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of
as meaning that a profession cannot be described as                      equal treatment for men and women in matters of social
regulated when there are in the host Member State no laws,               security ( OJ No L 6 , 1979 , p. 24 ) — the Court ( Fourth
regulations or administrative provisions governing the                   Chamber ), composed of: C. N. Kakouris ( Rapporteur ),
taking up or pursuit of that profession or ofone of its modes            President of the Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn and J. L. Murray,
of pursuit, even though the only education and training                  Judges; C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General ; R. Grass, Registrar,
leading to it consists of at least four and a half years of              has given a judgment on 8 February 1996 , in which it
higher-education studies on completion of which a diploma                rules :
 ---pagebreak---  No C 95/2             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      30 . 3 . 96
Article 4 (1 ) of Council Directive 79/7'/EEC of 19 December               the species concerned is a species of naturally occurring
 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of                birds in the wild state in the European territory of the
 equal treatment for men and women in matters of social                    Member States to which the Treaty applies — subject to
security must be interpreted as meaning that a national                    the option to derogate provided for by Article 9.
statutory scheme, such as that established by the IOAW,
 which provides for a benefit designed to guarantee                  2 . Directive 79/409/EEC is not applicable to specimens of
 beneficiaries income at the level of the social minimum,                  birds born and reared in captivity.
 irrespective as to whether the claimant has any resources but
subject to conditions relating to his previous employment
and age, does not involve discrimination on grounds of sex           3 . Directive 79/409/EEC requires each Member State to
even if it is established that a much greater number of men               ensure the protection of a species of bird naturally
 than women find in that scheme a way of avoiding the                     occurring in the wild state in the European territory of
means test which, in contrast, has to be satisfied in the case            the Member States to which the Treaty applies, even if
of another scheme, such as that established by the RWW,                   the natural habitat of the species in question does not
which, albeit providing for a benefit of the same type, is less           occur in the territory of the Member State concerned.
favourable, since the national legislature was reasonably
entitled to consider that the scheme in question was                 (') OJ No C 202 , 23 . 7. 1994 .
necessary in order to attain a social policy aim unrelated to
any discrimination on grounds of sex.
(') OJ No C 59 , 26 . 2 . 1994 .
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Third Chamber)
                                                                                of 8 February 1996
                                                                    in Case C-166/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling by
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                the Corte d'Appello, Salerno ): Pezzullo Molini Pastifici
                        (Third Chamber )                                 Mangimifici SpA against Ministero delle Finanze ( l )
                      of 8 February 1996                             (Inward processing arrangements — National legislation
in Case C-149/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from          providing for default interest on agricultural levies and
the Tribunale de Grande Instance, Caen ): Criminal                   VAT for the period between temporary and definitive
             proceedings against Didier Vergy ( 1 )                                            importation)
 (Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds —                                     ( 96/C 95/04 )
Prohibition of sale — Specimen born and reared in
                              captivity)                                              (Language of the case: Italian)
                           ( 96/C 95/03 )
                                                                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                (Language of the case: French)                           published in the Reports of Cases before the Court)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be        In Case C- 166/94 — reference by the Corte d'Appello
         published in the European Court Reports)                   ( Court of Appeal ), Salerno, for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                    proceedings pending before that court between Pezzullo
                                                                    Molini Pastifici Mangimifici SpA and Ministero delle
In Case C-149/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177         Finanze on the interpretation of Articles 9 , 12, 13 , 30 and 38
of the EC Treaty from the Tribunale de Grande Instance              of the EC Treaty and Article 18 ( 2 ) of Council Regulation
( Regional Court), Caen ( France ), for a preliminary ruling in     ( EEC ) No 2727/75 of 29 October 1975 on the common
the criminal proceedings pending before that court against          organization of the market in cereals ( OJ No L 281 , 1975 ,
Didier Vergy — on the interpretation of Council Directive           p. 1 ) and Article 16 of Council Directive 69/73/EEC of
79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild              4 March 1969 on the harmonization of provisions laid
birds ( OJ No L 103 , 1979 , p. 1 ) — the Court (Third              down by law, regulation or administrative action in respect
Chamber ), composed of: J. -P. Puissochet, President of the         of inward processing ( OJ English Special Edition 1969 ( I ),
Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida and C. Gulmann                   p. 75 ) — the Court (Third Chamber ), composed of J. -P.
( Rapporteur ), Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate-General; H.           Puissochet, President of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de
von Holstein, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a              Almeida and C. Gulmann ( Rapporteur ), Judges; F. G:
judgment on 8 February 1 996 , the operative part of which is       Jacobs, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a
as follows :                                                        judgment on 8 February 1996, the operative part of which is
                                                                    as follows :
1 . Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the
     conservation ofwild birds requires the Member States to        1 . Council Directive 69/73/EEC of 4 March 1969 on the
     prohibit trade in specimens belonging to a species ofbird            harmonization of provisions laid down by law,
     which is not listed in the Annexes thereto — in so far as            regulation or administrative action in respect of inward


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tullilautakunta by interim order of that body of 27 March 1996 in the proceedings brought by Outokumpu Oy (Case C-115/96)

text:
 No C 158/8               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          1 . 6 . 96
      the legislation applicable for the grant of benefits is to                  assimilation and simplification thresholds a detailed
      apply permanently even if the right to orphans' pension                     declaration of all its intra-Community imports and
      first arose in the Member State which is competent                          exports, has Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 3330/91 of
      thereunder ( in this case the State of residence ) but has                  7 November 1991 (') introduced a measure having an
      subsequently been lost by reason of the attainment of an                    effect equivalent to a quantitative restriction on trade
      age limit, while in another Member State whose                              in goods between Member States prohibited by
      legislation was also applicable to the insured person, a                    Articles 30 and 34 of the EEC Treaty ?
      right to orphan's pension would run beyond that time
      in pursuance of Article 79 of Regulation ( EEC )                     ( b ) Does the obligation to provide the data required under
      No 1408/71 , or is there in such a case a change                            the Intrastat collection system in both the importing
      of the legislation applicable in accordance with                            and the exporting country, breach of which is subject to
      Article 78 ( 2 ) ( b ) ( ii ) of the Regulation ?                           criminal sanctions under Luxembourg law in the event
                                                                                of non-submission of the information requested to
 2 . Does the expectation of continuing to receive orphans '                      the Service central de la statistique et des études
      pension already granted by a Member State under a                           économiques ( Central Statistics and Economics Unit ),
      convention concluded between two Member States and                          constitute for traders a constraint that is unjustified and
      transposed into national law for a longer period ( for                      disproportionate in relation to the general-interest
      example in the case of education or vocational training                     objective pursued and is it therefore contrary to the
      extending beyond the completion of the 18th year ) than                     third paragraph of Article 3b of the EEC Treaty as
      the orphans' pension which is to be granted pursuant to                     inserted by Article G ( 5 ) of the Treaty on European
      the legislation of another Member State, applicable                         Union signed at Maastricht on 7 February 1992 ?
      under Article 78 ( 2 ) ( b ) of Regulation ( EEC )
      No 1408/71 , constitue one of the social security                    C ) OJ No L 316 , 16 . 11 . 1991 , p . 1 .
      advantages which orphans must not lose by virtue of
      the fact that the said convention lias been rendered
      inapplicable by the entry into force of Regulation ( EEC )
      No 1408 /71 ?
 3 . If Question 2 is answered in the affirmative : Can
      orphans who were already entitled, before Regulation                 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tullilautakunta
      ( EEC ) No 1408/71 came into force, to orphans'                     by interim order of that body of 27 March 1996 in the
      pensions according to the law of a Member State in                               proceedings brought by Outokumpu Oy
      pursuance of a social insurance convention concluded                                          ( Case C-1 15/96 )
      between two Member States again rely on that
      entitlement where there is no longer any right to                                               ( 96/C 158 / 18 )
      a benefit which first arose under the legislation
      of another Member State applicable under                             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      Article 78 ( 2 ) ( b ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 ?            European Communities by an interim order of the
                                                                          Tullilautakunta ( Customs Committee ) of 27 March 1996 ,
(') OJ , English Special Edition 1971 ( II ), p . 416 .                   which was received at the Court Registry on 10 April 1 996 ,
                                                                          for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings brought by
                                                                           Outokumpu Oy on the following questions :
                                                                           1 . Is the duty levied on electricity to be regarded as a
                                                                                customs duty or other charge having equivalent effect
                                                                                prohibited by Articles 9 and 12 of the EC Treaty, if the
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de                         electricity duty is determined with respect to electricity
Police, Luxembourg, by judgment of that court of 2 April                        imported from another Member State on the basis of the
1996 in the case of Ministère Public v. René Kieffer and                        amount of electricity received by the recipient of
                               Romain Thill                                     electricity during a tax period, whereas with respect to
                            ( Case C-1 14/96 )                                  domestically produced electricity the duty is determined
                                                                                on the basis of the amount produced during a tax
                              ( 96/C 158/17)                                    period ?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                          What effect does it have on the assessment of the matter
European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal de                           that the rate of duty is different for electricity produced
Police ( Local Criminal Court ), Luxembourg, of 2 April                          by different production methods ? Duty of 2,4 p/kWh is
1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on 9 April                      levied on electricity produced by nuclear power, and the
 1 996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Ministère Public               rate of duty levied on imported electricity is 2,2 p/kWh .
( Public Prosecutor's Office ) v . René Kieffer and Romain                      Duty of 0,4 p/kWh is levied on electricity produced by
Thill on the following questions :                                              water power .
( a ) In so far as it requires Member States to obtain from               2 . Is the tax system described in Question 1 to be regarded
       every undertaking exceeding the stipulated exclusion,                    as an internal taxation system of a Member State ,
 ---pagebreak--- 1 . 6 . 96             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 158/9
      contrary to Article 95 of the EC Treaty, which taxes             Handelsrejsende acting as Agent for Carina Mosbsek v .
      electricity supplied from other Member States more               Lonmodtagernes Garantifond on the following question:
      heavily than domestically produced electricity ?
                                                                       In a situation where the employer is not established in the
3 . If the answer to Question 1 or 2 is in the affirmative, is         Member State in which the employee is resident and is solely
      the system described therein to be regarded as contrary          represented in the State of the employee's residence by way
      to the EC Treaty in its entirety or in some respects ?           of the said employee's work, which, inter alia, is carried out
                                                                       in office premises rented by the employer for the employee's
                                                                       use , is it the guarantee institution in the country where the
                                                                       employer is established or the guarantee institution in the
                                                                       country where the employee is resident which, on the
                                                                       employer's insolvency, according to Article 3 of Directive
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof
                                                                       80/987/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the
by order of 8 February 1996 in the case of Reisebiiro Binder
                                                                       Member States relating to the protection of employees in the
         GmbH v. Finanzamt Stuttgart-Kôrperschaften
                                                                       event of the insolvency of their employer ( l ) is to guarantee
                        ( Case C-1 16/96                               payment of the employee's outstanding claims resulting
                          ( 96/C 158/ 19 )                             from the employment relationship in question ?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 (') OJ No L 283 , 28 . 10 . 1980 , p . 23 .
European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof
( Federal Finance Court), Fifth Chamber, of 8 February
1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on 10 April
1996 , in the case of Reisebiiro Binder GmbH v . Finanzamt
Stuttgart-Kôrperschaften          ( Stuttgart    Tax      Office :
Corporations ), on the following questions :
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Lansràtten,
Is Article 9 ( 2 ) ( b ) of Directive 77/388/EEC (') to be             County of Kopparberg, by order of that court of 22 March
interpreted as meaning that for the determination of the               1996 in the case of Jessica Safir v. County of Kopparberg
taxable amount for that part of the transport which takes                                        Tax Authority
place within the country in the case of cross-frontier                                         ( Case C-l 18/96 )
transport of passengers the inclusive consideration :                                            ( 96/C 158/21 )
( a ) must always be apportioned according to the
       proportion of the distances covered, so that stopping           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
       and waiting times between the portions of the                   European Communities by an order of the Lansràtten
       transport, for example with educational trips, are not          ( County Administrative Court ) Kopparberg of 22 March
       taken into account, or                                          1 996 , which was received at the Court Registry on 12 April
                                                                       1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Jessica Safir
( b ) does the provision contain only a rule with regard to the        v . County of Kopparberg Tax Authority on the following
       place where the transport services are supplied , under         question :
       which that place is to be determined only according to
       the distances covered, so that the Member States are            Where in a Member State , the taxation of savings policies
       free to determine the criterion by which the inclusive          issued by domestic life assurance companies and foreign life
       consideration is to be apportioned between the taxable          assurance companies conducting insurance business in the
       and the non-taxable parts of the transport ?                    Member State through an establishment, takes the form of a
                                                                       tax on yield from insurance capital calculated in a standard
C ) OJ No L 145 , 1977, p . 1 .                                        way and levied on the insurer, is it contrary to Articles 6 , 59,
                                                                       60 or 73b and 73d of the Treaty of Rome for tax to be
                                                                       charged — with the aim of maintaining competitive
                                                                       neutrality between domestic and foreign savings policies —
                                                                       on insurance premiums paid by policyholders resident in the
                                                                       Member State under life assurance policies contracted with
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the 0stre Landsret by            insurers which are established in another Member State and
a decision of that court of 27 March 1996 in the case of               which are operating in the firstmentioned Member State in
Danmarks Aktive Handelsrejsende acting as Agent for                    accordance with the rules on corss-border insurance
       Carina Mosbaek v. Lonmodtagernes Garantifond                    activities, if the tax on the aforementioned insurance
                        ( Case C-1 17/96 )                             premiums can, upon application to the tax administration,
                           ( 96/C 158/20 )                             be reduced entirely, or by 50 % in the event that the
                                                                       insurance company established abroad is subject to income
                                                                       tax in the State in which it is domiciled that is comparable to
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 the tax charged on domestic savings policies in the other
European Communities by an order of the 0stre Landsret                 Member State ?
( Eastern Regional Court ) of 27 March 1996 , which was
received at the Court Registry on 12 April 1996 , for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Danmarks Aktive


title: Case C-144/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Maramureș (Romania) lodged on 26 March 2014  — Cabinet Medical Veterinar Dr. Tomoiagă Andrei v Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Cluj-Napoca prin Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Maramureș

text:
               7.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/13

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Maramureș (Romania) lodged on 26 March 2014 — Cabinet Medical Veterinar Dr. Tomoiagă Andrei v Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Cluj-Napoca prin Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Maramureș
   (Case C-144/14)
   2014/C 212/13
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Tribunalul Maramureș

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Cabinet Medical Veterinar Dr. Tomoiagă Andrei

      Defendant: Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Cluj-Napoca prin Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Maramureș

      Joined as guarantor: Direcția Sanitar-Veterinară și pentru Siguranța Alimentelor Maramureș

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 273 and point 18 of Article 287 of Directive 2006/112/EC (1) on the common system of value added tax be interpreted as meaning that the national tax authority was under an obligation to register a taxable person for VAT purposes and to find that person liable to pay the VAT, and the related ancillary debts, arising from the fact that the tax exemption threshold had been exceeded, with effect from the date on which the taxable person submitted tax declarations to the competent tax authority showing that the VAT exemption threshold had been exceeded?

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, does the principle of legal certainty preclude national practice on the basis of which the tax authority has established retroactively that a taxable person is liable to pay VAT because the supply of veterinary services is not exempt from VAT and the tax exemption threshold was exceeded, in a situation in which:

                           —

                           the tax authority did not, of its own motion, register the taxable person for VAT purposes and did not find that person liable to pay VAT from the moment when the taxable person submitted the tax declarations showing that the threshold had been exceeded, but did so later, after the Detailed Rules for the Implementation of the Tax Code had been amended by Government Decree No 1620/2009 to the effect that the exemption provided for under Article 141(1)(a) of the Tax Code does not apply to the supply of veterinary services, as established by the Court of Justice in Case 122/87 Commission v Italy EU:C:1988:256, and in relation to a period preceding that amendment;

                           —

                           through the tax declarations submitted by the taxable person, the tax authority had become aware, before the Detailed Rules for the Implementation of the Tax Code were amended by Government Decree No 1620/2009 in the manner described above, that the exemption threshold had been exceeded;

                           —

                           before the publication of Government Decree No 1620/2009, the tax authority did not adopt in its area of competence — which also covers the taxable person in the main proceedings — any administrative tax measures designed to establish that taxable persons which are veterinary practices had failed to register for the purposes of VAT incurred as a consequence of the VAT payment exemption threshold being exceeded and, consequently, intended to establish the liability of those persons for VAT;

                           —

                           during the period preceding the adoption and entry into force of Government Decree No 1620/2009, the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case 122/87 Commission v Italy EU:C:1988:256 had not been published in any form in the Romanian language?

      (1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ L 347, p. 1, Special Edition 9, vol. 3, p. 7)


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Third Chamber) of 12 January 1995 in Case T-85/94: Eugénio Branco Ldª v. Commission of the European Communities (European Social Fund - Application for annulment of a decision reducing financial assistance initially granted - Statement of reasons - Default proceedings)

text:
4 . 3 . 95             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 54/15
                                                      COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                           ASSIGNMENT OF JUDGES TO CHAMBERS
                                                              ( 95/C 54/25 )
               Following the taking up by Ms Tiili, Ms Lindh and Mr Azizi of their duties as Judges, the Court of
               First Instance decides, in accordance with Article 10 ( 1 ) of the Rules of Procedure, to supplement as
               follows the Decision of 2 June 1994 i 1 ) on the composition of the Chambers for the 1994/1995
               judicial year:
               — Judge Tiili is assigned to the First Chamber, to the First Chamber in its extended composition and
                   to the Second Chamber in its extended composition,
               — Judge Lindh is assigned to the Fourth Chamber, to the Third Chamber in its extended
                   composition and to the Fourth Chamber in its extended composition,
               — Judge Azizi is assigned to the Third Chamber, to the Third Chamber in its extended composition
                   and to the Fourth Chamber in its extended composition.
               (!) OJ No C 233 , 20 . 8 . 1994 .
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 2. orders the applicant to pay the whole of the costs,
                      of 12 January 1995                                     including those incurred by the intervener, Parker Pen
                                                                             Ltd.
in Case T-l 02/92: Viho Europe BV v. Commission of the
                   European Communities (*)                             (!) OJ No C 1 , 5 . 1 . 1993 .
(Competition — Complaints — Rejection — Agreements,
decisions and concerted practices — Groups of companies
                — Article 85 (1) of the Treaty)
                          ( 95/C 54/26 )
                                                                         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Third Chamber)
               (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                of 12 January 1995
                                                                        in Case T-85/94: Eugenio Branco La*. v. Commission of the
In Case T-l 02/92: Viho Europe BV, established in                                         European Communities C )
Maastricht (Netherlands ), represented by Werner
Kleinmann, Rechtsanwalt, Stuttgart, with an address for                 (European Social Fund — Application for annulment of a
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Dupong et                      decision reducing financial assistance initially granted —
Associés, 14A Rue des Bains, v. Commission of the                               Statement of reasons — Default proceedings)
European Communities (Agents: B. Langeheine and B.J.                                                95/C 54/27)
Drijber ), supported by Parker Pen Ltd, whose registered
office is in Newhaven (United Kingdom), represented by                               (Language of the case: Portuguese)
Carla Hamburger, of the Amsterdam Bar, with an address
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Loesch,               In Case T-85/94: Eugenio Branco Lda, having its registered
11 Rue Goethe — application for the annulment of the                    office in Lisbon, represented by Bolota Belchior, of the Bar
Commission Decision of 30 September 1992 rejecting the                  of Vila Nova de Gaia, with an address for service in
complaint of Viho Europe BV that Parker Pen Ltd and its                 Luxembourg at the Chambers of Jacques Schroeder, 6 Rue
subsidiaries infringed Article 85 ( 1 ) of the EEC Treaty               Heine, against Commission of the European Communities
(IV/32.725 — Viho/Parker Pen II) — the Court of First                   (Agents: F. de Sousa Fialho and H. Kreppel) — application
Instance (First Chamber ), composed of: R. Schintgen,                   for the annulment of the Commission decision of 29 March
President, and R. García-Valdecasas, H. Kirschner, B.                   1993 reducing the assistance initially granted to the
Vesterdorf and C.W. Bellamy, Judges, H. Jung, Registrar,                applicant by the European Social Fund — the Court of First
has given a judgment on 12 January 1995, in which it:                   Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: J. Biancarelli,
                                                                        President, C.P. Briët and C.W. Bellamy, Judges, H. Jung,
                                                                        Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 January 1995, in
 1 . dismisses the application;                                         which it:
 ---pagebreak--- No C 54/16          | EN |                Official Journal of the European Communities                                         4 . 3 . 95
 1 . annuls the Commission decision of 29 March 1993                 4. orders the parties in Case T-62/92 to bear their own
     reducing the assistance initially granted to the applicant            costs.
     by the ESF;
                                                                     í 1 ) OJ No C 28 , 5 . 2 . 1992 and OJ No C 258 , 7. 10 . 1992 .
2. orders the Commission to pay the costs.
(!) OJ No C 120, 30 . 4 . 1994 .
                                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 26 January 1995
                                                                     on Case T-527/93 : O v. Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities ( a )
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             (Officials   — Action seeking annulment — Decision
                      of 26 January 1995                             suspendingpayment ofremuneration pursuant to Article 60
                                                                                of the Staff Regulations)
in Joined Cases T-90/91 and T-62/92: Henri de Compte v.
                   European Parliament ( J )                                                      ( 95/C 54/29 )
 (Officials — Revocation of a decision recognizing an
occupational disease — Subsequent adoption of a decision                             (Language of the case: French)
refusing to recognize the occupational disease —
                           Annulment)                                In Case T-527/93 : O, an official of the Commission of the
                                                                     European Communities, represented by Jean-Francois
                          ( 95/C 54/28 )
                                                                     Neven, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                     Luxembourg at the Chambers of Catherine Dessoy, 31 Rue
                (Language of the case: French)                       d'Eich, against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                     (Agents: Sean van Raepenbusch and Gianluigi Valsesia ) —
                                                                     application for the annulment of the Commission decision
In Joined Cases T-90/91 and T-62/92: Henri de Compte, a              of 23 December 1992 ordering suspension, pursuant to
former official of the European Parliament residing at               Article 60 of the Staff Regulations, of payment of the
Strasbourg (France), represented by Edmond Lebrun and                applicant's remuneration with effect from 1 January 1993
Eric Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service      — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of:
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du            J.L. Cruz Vila^a, President, H. Kirschner and A.
Fort Rheinsheim. v. European Parliament (Agent: Frangois             Kalogeropoulos,           Judges;     J.     Palacio    Gonzalez,
Vainker) — application, first, for the annulment of the              Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
decision of the European Parliament of 18 April 1991 by              26 January 1995 , in which it:
which it retroactively revoked its decision of 24 January
1991 recognizing that the applicant was suffering from an
                                                                     1 . annuls the Commission decision of 23 December 1992
occupational disease within the meaning of Article 73 of the
                                                                           ordering payment of the applicant's remuneration to be
Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities
and for an order requiring the defendant institution to pay
                                                                           suspended with effect from 1 January 1993;
to him the compensation awarded thereby (Case T-90/91 )              2. orders the Commission to pay all the costs.
and, second, the annulment of the decision of the European
Parliament of 20 January 1992 by which it refused to
                                                                     (!) OJ No C 299, 5 . 11 . 1993 .
recognize that the applicant was suffering from an
occupational disease and for an order requiring the
defendant institution to pay to him the compensation
provided for in that regard ( Case T-62/92 ) — the Court of
First Instance (First Chamber), composed of J.L. Cruz
Vilaga, President, and H. Kirschner and A. Kalogeropoulos,           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on
26 January 1995 , in which it:                                                               of 26 January 1995
                                                                     in Case T-549/93 : D v. Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities (*)
1 . dismisses the claims for relief made in the application in
     Case T-90/91 . The European Parliament is ordered to            (Officials — Disciplinaryproceedings — DisciplinaryBoard
     pay to the applicant compensation for non-material                            — Inquiry — Sexual harassment)
     damage in the sum of Bfrs 200 000;                                                             95/C 54/30)
2. dismisses the application in Case T-62/92;                                        (Language of the case: French)
3 . orders the European Parliament in Case T-90/91 to bear          In Case T-549/93 : D, a former official of the Commission of
     its own costs and to pay one quarter of the costs of the       the European Communities, represented by Eric Boigelot, of
     applicant, who is consequently to bear three quarters of       the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
     his own costs;                                                 at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim,


title: Case C-209/13: Action brought on 18 April 2013 — United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v Council of the European Union

text:
               15.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/22

         Action brought on 18 April 2013 — United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-209/13)
   2013/C 171/44
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: E. Jenkinson, S. Behzadi-Spencer, Agents, M. Hoskins QC, P. Baker QC, V. Wakefield, Barrister)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Council Decision 2013/52/EU (1) authorising enhanced cooperation in the area of financial transaction tax; and

               —

               Require the Council to pay the United Kingdom’s costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      First plea in law, alleging that Council Decision 2013/52/EU is contrary to Article 327 TFEU because it authorizes the adoption of a financial transaction tax (‘FTT’) with extraterritorial effects which will fail to respect the competences, rights and obligations of the Non-Participating States.

      Second plea in law, alleging that Council Decision 2013/52/EU is unlawful because it authorizes the adoption of an FTT with extraterritorial effects for which there is no justification in customary international law.

      Third plea in law, alleging that Council Decision 2013/52/EU is contrary to Article 332 TFEU because it authorizes enhanced cooperation for an FTT, the implementation of which will inevitably cause costs to be incurred by the Non-Participating States.

      (1)  OJ L 22, p. 11


title: Case T-658/11: Action brought on 20 December 2011 — Commission v OHIM — Ten ewiv (TEN)

text:
               31.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/22

         Action brought on 20 December 2011 — Commission v OHIM — Ten ewiv (TEN)
   (Case T-658/11)
   2012/C 98/36
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Berenboom, A. Joachimowicz and M. Isgour, lawyers, J. Samnadda and F. Wilman, Agents)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ten ewiv (Rösrath-Hoffnungstahl, Germany)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 October 2011 in case R 5/2011-4;

               —

               Declare therefore invalid the Community trademark No 6750574 registered on 5 February 2009 by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal in classes 12, 37 and 39; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The figurative mark ‘TEN’ in the colours ‘blue, yellow, black’, for goods and services in classes 12, 37 and 39 — Community trade mark registration No 6750574

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

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

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The party requesting the declaration of invalidity grounded its request on absolute grounds laid down in Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(c) and (h) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

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

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: The contested decision infringes Article 7(1)(h) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Article 6 ter (1) of the Paris Convention in so far as the Community trade mark (‘CTM’) has been registered, although its registration falls within the scope of prohibition laid down in those provisions. The contested decision also violates Article 7(1)(g) in so far as such a registration would deceive the public by making them believe that the products and services for which the CTM is registered are approved or endorsed by the European Union or one of its institutions.


title: Case T-342/06: Action brought on 1 December 2006 — Angiotech Pharmaceuticals v OHIM (VASCULAR WRAP)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/81

         Action brought on 1 December 2006 — Angiotech Pharmaceuticals v OHIM (VASCULAR WRAP)
   (Case T-342/06)
   (2006/C 326/165)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Angiotech Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Vancouver, Canada) (represented by: T. Clark, Barrister)

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

               —

               Annul decision R 751/2006-2 of the Second Board of Appeal, dated 20 September 2006, and remit the application to the Office of Harmonisation in the Internal Market to allow it to proceed; or

               —

               in the alternative, if the Court finds that the application should only be allowed to proceed in relation to some of the goods the subject of the application, it should annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal in relation to those goods only and remit the application to proceed before the Office in accordance with that finding;

               —

               order that the Office pay the applicant's costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘VASCULAR WRAP’ for goods and services in classes 5 and 10 (dressings, bandages, coatings, compositions and medical devices for surgical application) — application number 4220811.

      Decision of the examiner: Refusal of the application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation 40/94.


title: Case C-138/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Ítélőtábla (Hungary) lodged on 7 April 2008 — Hochtief AG, Linde-Kca-Dresden GmbH v Közbeszerzések Tanácsa Közbeszerzési Döntőbizottság

text:
               19.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/9

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Ítélőtábla (Hungary) lodged on 7 April 2008 — Hochtief AG, Linde-Kca-Dresden GmbH v Közbeszerzések Tanácsa Közbeszerzési Döntőbizottság
   (Case C-138/08)
   (2008/C 183/16)
   Language of the case: Hungarian
   Referring court
   Fővárosi Ítélőtábla (Hungary)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Hochtief AG, Linde-Kca-Dresden GmbH

      Defendant: Közbeszerzések Tanácsa Közbeszerzési Döntőbizottság

      Intervener: Budapest Főváros Önkormányzata
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is the procedure laid down in Article 44(3) of Directive 2004/18/EC, which replaced Article 22 of Council Directive 93/37/EEC (1) concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, applicable where the procurement procedure was initiated at a time when Directive 2004/18/EC (2) had already entered into force, but the time-limit granted to Member States for implementing that directive had not yet expired, so that the directive had not been incorporated into national law?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, this court further asks whether, in the case of negotiated procedures with publication of a contract notice, — having regard to the fact that Article 44(3) of Directive 2004/18/EC provides that ‘[i]n any event the number of candidates invited shall be sufficient to ensure genuine competition’ — the limitation of the number of suitable candidates should be interpreted as meaning that in the second stage — that of awarding the contract — there must invariably be a minimum number of candidates (three)?

               3.

               If the answer to the first question is in the negative, this court further asks the Court of Justice whether the requirement that ‘there be a sufficient number of suitable candidates’, under Article 22(3) of Council Directive 93/37/EEC concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts (‘Directive 93/37’), should be interpreted as meaning that where the minimum number of suitable candidates invited to take part is not reached (three), the procedure cannot continue to the stage of invitation to tender?

               4.

               If the Court of Justice replies to the third question in the negative, this court further asks whether the second paragraph of Article 22(2) of Directive 93/37 — in the rules on restricted procedures, according to which ‘[i]n any event, the number of candidates invited to tender shall be sufficient to ensure genuine competition’ — is applicable to two-stage negotiated procedures, governed by Article 22(3)?

      (1)  OJ 1993 L 199, p. 54.

      (2)  OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 27 November 1997 in Case T-20/96: Stephen Pascall v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Member of the temporary staff in the scientific and technical services - Appointment to a post covered by the operating budget - Withdrawal of a decision granting further advancement to a higher step on account of exceptional merit)

text:
C 7/14                  EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                10. 1. 98
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                      of 27 November 1997                                                    of 27 November 1997
in Case T-224/95: Roger Tremblay and Others v.                           in Case T-20/96: Stephen Pascall v. Commission of the
        Commission of the European Communities (1)                                         European Communities (1)
(Competition Ð Copyright Ð Rejection of a complaint Ð                    (Officials Ð Member of the temporary staff in the
Enforcement of a judgment setting aside a decision Ð                     scientific and technical services Ð Appointment to a post
Partitioning of market Ð Statement of reasons Ð Misuse                   covered by the operating budget Ð Withdrawal of a
                             of powers)                                  decision granting further advancement to a higher step on
                                                                                account of exceptional merit)
                            (98/C 7/46)
                                                                                (98/C 7/47)
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-224/95: Roger Tremblay, residing in Vernantes                  In Case T-20/96: Stephen Pascall, an official of the
(France), Harry Kestenberg, residing in Saint-AndreÂ-les-                Commission of the European Communities, residing in
Vergers (France), and Syndicat des Exploitants de Lieux de               Brussels, represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis, Thierry
Loisirs (SELL), established in Paris, represented by Jean                Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an
Claude Fourgoux, of the Paris Bar, with an address for                   address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz,                Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30, rue de Cessange, v.
4, rue BeÂatrix de Bourbon, supported by Music Users'                    Commission of the European Communities (Agent: Ana
Council of Europe (MUCE), established in Uxbridge                        Maria Alves Vieira) Ð application for annulment of the
(United Kingdom), represented by Jean-Louis Fourgoux,                    Commission's decision of 26 June 1995 withdrawing its
of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in                         decision of 18 October 1994 granting the applicant
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz, 4, rue                    further advancement to a higher step Ð the Court of First
BeÂatrix de Bourbon, Associazione Italiana Imprenditori                  Instance (Second Chamber), composed of: C. W. Bellamy,
Locali da Ballo (SILB), established in Rome, represented                 President, and A. Kalogeropoulos and R. M. Moura
by Jean Claude Fourgoux, of the Paris Bar, with an                       Ramos, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar,
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                     has given a judgment on 27 November 1997, in which it:
Pierrot Schiltz, 4, rue BeÂatrix de Bourbon, against the
Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
                                                                         1. Dismisses the action.
Giuliano Marenco and Guy Charrier), supported by The
French Republic (Agents: Kareen Rispal-Bellanger and
Jean-Marc Belorgey), application, first, for annulment of                2. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to
the Commission decision of 13 October 1995 rejecting the                     pay the costs of the applicant.
complaints made on 4 February 1986, in particular by
Messrs Tremblay and Kesterberg, pursuant to Article 3 (2)                (1) OJ C 108, 13. 4. 1996.
of Council Regulation No 17 of 6 February 1962, first
Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the
Treaty (2), concerning the existence of market sharing and
the total partitioning of the market said to result
therefrom, as between the societies which manage
copyright in the various Member States and, secondly, an                      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
order against the Commission requiring it to carry out the
investigations necessary in order to establish the existence                                   of 3 October 1997
of the restrictive agreement complained of Ð the Court of                in Case T-186/96: Mutual Aid Administration Services
First Instance of the European Communities (Third                            NV v. Commission of the European Communities (1)
Chamber), composed of C. W. Bellamy, President, A.
                                                                         (Tender for the transportation of free supplies of
Kalogeropoulos and J. D. Cooke, Judges, Registrar: M. A.
                                                                         agricultural products intended for the peoples of Armenia
Mair, Administrator, has given a judgment on
                                                                         and Azerbaijan Ð Refusal by the Commission to pay to
27 November 1997, in which it:
                                                                         the successful transportation tenderer the whole of the
                                                                         price claimed Ð Action for annulment Ð Action
1. Dismisses the action;                                                 constituting in actual fact an action for performance of a
                                                                         transportation contract Ð Manifest lack of jurisdiction of
                                                                         the Court of First Instance Ð Manifest inadmissibility of
2. Orders the applicants to pay the costs;                                                 the action for annulment)
                                                                                (98/C 7/48)
3. Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
(1) OJ C 64, 2. 3. 1996.
(2) Official Journal, English Special Edition 1959Ð62, p. 87.
                                                                         In Case T-186/96: Mutual Aid Administration Services
                                                                         NV, established in Antwerp (Belgium), represented by Jan
                                                                         Tritsmans, of the Antwerp Bar, with an address for service


title: Case T-448/15: Order of the General Court of 5 July 2017 — EEB v Commission (Action for annulment and compensation — Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents concerning the withdrawal of Proposal COM(2014) 397 final for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council — Partial refusal of access — No need to adjudicate in part — Partial manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               28.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/49

         Order of the General Court of 5 July 2017 — EEB v Commission
   (Case T-448/15) (1)

   ((Action for annulment and compensation - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents concerning the withdrawal of Proposal COM(2014) 397 final for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council - Partial refusal of access - No need to adjudicate in part - Partial manifest inadmissibility))
   (2017/C 283/75)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Environmental Bureau (EEB) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: B. Kloostra, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Pignataro-Nolin, E. Sanfrutos Cano and A. Buchet, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: European Parliament (represented by A. Tamás and I. McDowell, acting as Agents) and Council of the European Union (represented by B. Driessen, E. Rebasti and M. Moore, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application, first, under Article 263 TFEU, for, primarily, the annulment of the Commission’s decision of 1 June 2015 and, in the alternative, the annulment of an implied refusal and, secondly, under Article 268 TFEU, for repair of the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of that measure.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the application for annulment.

               2.

               The action is dismissed as to the remainder as manifestly inadmissible.

               3.

               The European Commission is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Environmental Bureau (EEB).

               4.

               The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union are ordered to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 328, 5.10.2015.


title: Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-61/95 R and T-62/95 R

text:
No C 299/22             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                11 . 11 . 95
Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case             ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF
T-69/94 : Georgios Rounis v. Commission of the European                                     FIRST INSTANCE
Communities .
                                                                                of 1 1 August 1 995
                                                                             in Case T-l 04/95 R : Tsimentas Chalkidos AE
(') O | No C 90 , 26 . 3 . 1994 .
                                                                              v. Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                ( 95 /C 299/49 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                      In Case T-l 04/95 R : Tsimentas Chalkidos AE, established
         Removal from the register of Joined Cases                    in Athens ( Greece ), represented by Panagiotis Bernitsas, of
                T-61 /95 R and T-62/95 R (M                           the Athens Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                           ( 95/C 299/48 )                            at the Chambers of Philippe Dupont, 8-10 , Rue Mathias
                                                                      Hardt, v. Commission of the European Communities
             (Language of the case: Portuguese)                       ( Agents : Theofanis Christoforou and Richard Lyal ) —
                                                                      application for suspension of operation of Commission
By order of 13 July 1995 the President of the Court of First          Decision 94/815/EC of 30 November 1994 relating to a
Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal              proceeding under Article 85 of the EC Treaty ( Cases
from the register of Joined Cases T-61 /95 R and T-62/95 R :          IV/33 . 126 and 33.322 — Cement, OJ 1994 L 343 , p. 1 ), in
CIMPOR — Cimentos de Portugal , SA and SECIL —                        so far as it requires the applicant to pay a fine of ECU
                                                                       1 856 000 — the President of the Court of First Instance
Companhia Geral de Cal e Cimento , SA v. Commission of
the European Communities .
                                                                      made an order on 11 August 1995 , the operative part of
                                                                      which is as follows :
(') Q J No C 1 37, 3 . 6 . 1995 .                                      1 . the application for interim measures is dismissed;
                                                                      2.   the costs are reserved.


title: Case T-594/15: Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2017 — Metabolic Balance Holding v EUIPO (Metabolic Balance) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU figurative mark Metabolic Balance — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               22.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/24

         Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2017 — Metabolic Balance Holding v EUIPO (Metabolic Balance)
   (Case T-594/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Application for the EU figurative mark Metabolic Balance - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 161/33)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Metabolic Balance Holding GmbH (Isen, Germany) (represented by: W. Riegger, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Fischer and J. Németh, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 August 2015 (Case R 2156/2014-1), concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign Metabolic Balance as an EU trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Metabolic Balance Holding GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by EUIPO.

      (1)  OJ C 398, 30.11.2015.


title: Case C-612/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano (Italy) on 30 November 2011 — Criminal proceedings against Vincenzo Veneruso

text:
               3.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/4

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano (Italy) on 30 November 2011 — Criminal proceedings against Vincenzo Veneruso
   (Case C-612/11)
   2012/C 65/07
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring Court

   Tribunale di Milano

      Party in the main proceedings

   Vincenzo Veneruso

      Questions referred

   Do Articles 43 EC and 49 EC on freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services in the sporting bets industry authorise national legislation establishing a monopoly regime and a system of concessions and authorisations which, in the context of a given number of concessions, makes provision for:

               (a)

               the existence of a general tendency to protect the holders of concessions granted during an earlier period on the basis of a procedure which unlawfully excluded some of the operators;

               (b)

               the presence of provisions which de facto guarantee the maintenance of commercial positions acquired at the end of a procedure which unlawfully excluded some of the operators (as, for example, the prohibition on new concession holders from installing their counters at less than a given distance from those already existing; and

               (c)

               the fixing of hypotheses for the expiry of the concession and the acquisition of guarantees of a very high amount, such hypotheses including that in which the concessionnaire directly or indirectly operates cross-border gaming activities comparable with those forming the subject-matter of the concession?


title: Case C-235/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Queen's Bench Division, Divisional Court, by order of that Court of 18 December 1998, in the case of The Queen against Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte: Eleanora Ivanova Kondova

text:
28.8.1999               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 246/15
     Denmark [1988] ECR 4607), preclude a national system                   — part of the revenue generated by the levy is allocated to
     under which criminal charges may be brought against a                       activities which, in view of their nature and immediate
     person who, contrary to certain national rules on the                       objectives, concern primary production of pigs in the
     packaging of beer and soft drinks, has marketed imported                    Member State, and thus also benefit exported pigs,
     canned cola in the metal packaging at issue in this case?                   whereas another part of the revenue generated by the
                                                                                levy is allocated to activities which, in view of their
                                                                                nature and immediate objectives, concern only slaugh-
(1) OJ 1994 L 365, p. 10.                                                        tering and further processing in the Member State and
                                                                                the sale on the domestic and export markets of
                                                                                nationally processed derivatives of the primary
                                                                                product, and thus do not benefit exported pigs?
                                                                        II. If Question I is answered in the affirmative: does it make
                                                                            any difference to the answer that the levy scheme was,
                                                                            pursuant to Article 95(3) (Presumably Article 93(3)) of the
                                                                            EC Treaty, notified to and approved by the EU Commission
                                                                            as being lawful State aid?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Vestre Landsret
by order of 16 June 1999 in the case of Niels Nygård v
                        Svineafgiftsfonden
                         (Case C-234/99)
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
                         (1999/C 246/31)                                Justice (England and Wales), Queen’s Bench Division,
                                                                        Divisional Court, by order of that Court of 18 December
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  1998, in the case of The Queen against Secretary of State
European Communities by order of 16 June 1999 by the                    for the Home Department, Ex parte: Eleanora Ivanova
Vestre Landsret (Western Regional Court), which was received                                         Kondova
at the Court Registry on 21 June 1999, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of Niels Nygard v Svineafgiftsfonden on the                                          (Case C-235/99)
following questions:
                                                                                (1999/C 246/32)
I.   Must Articles 9, 12 and 16 of the EC Treaty or Article 95
     of the EC Treaty be construed as meaning that those
     provisions, or that provision, preclude a public body in a         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     Member State from charging a production levy in respect            European Communities by an order of the High Court of
     of pigs produced in the Member State in question and               Justice (England and Wales), Queen’s Bench Division, Div-
     exported live to another Member State, in the case where:          isional Court, of 18 December 1998, which was received at
                                                                        the Court Registry on 22 June 1999, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                        in the case of The Queen against Secretary of State for the
     — a similar levy is charged for each pig produced in the           Home Department, Ex parte: Eleanora Ivanova Kondova, on
         Member State in question and sold for slaughter on the         the following questions:
         domestic market;
                                                                        1. Does Article 45 of the Association Agreement between the
     — the detailed rules for calculating the levy do not give              EEC and the Republic of Bulgaria (‘the Agreement’: OJ
         rise to discrimination between the two product groups,             1993 L 358, p.1) (1) confer rights of establishment upon a
         since, when the different ‘weight categories’ are being            Bulgarian national who, under national immigration law,
         determined for slaughtered and live pigs, it can be                is treated as having entered the territory of that Member
         assumed that compensation is provided for the average              State illegally?
         difference between ‘carcass weight’ and ‘live weight’,
         but                                                            2. If the answer to the first question is ‘yes’, does Article 45
                                                                            of the Agreement have direct effect within the national
     — the levy in respect of pigs sold for slaughter on the                legal systems of Member States, notwithstanding the
         domestic market becomes payable when they are                      provisions of Article 59 of the Agreement?
         delivered for slaughter, whereas the levy in respect of
         pigs exported live becomes payable at the time of              3. If the answer to the second question is ‘yes’,
         export;
                                                                            i) to what extent may a Member State apply its laws and
                                                                                regulations regarding entry and stay, work, labour
     — in the first case, the levy is payable by the producer,                   conditions and establishment of natural persons, and
         whereas in the second case it is payable by the exporter,               supply of services, to persons invoking Article 45 of the
         irrespective of whether he is also the producer, and;                   Agreement, without violating the proviso contained in
                                                                                the penultimate sentence of Article 59(1) of the
     — the levy is not charged in respect of pigs sold live on                   Agreement and, inter alia, the principle of pro-
         the domestic market, and;                                               portionality?
 ---pagebreak--- C 246/16              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      28.8.1999
    ii) does Article 59, in any and if so what circumstances,           Action brought on 23 June 1999 by the Commission
        permit the refusal of an application under Article 45           of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
        of the Agreement made by someone whose initial                                                 Belgium
        entry into that Member State was otherwise unlawful?
                                                                                (Case C-236/99)
4. If the answer to the second question is ‘yes’, does Article                                    (1999/C 246/33)
    45 and/or Article 59 of the Agreement permit the appli-
    cation of a provision of national law under which the
    competent national authorities may require a Bulgarian              An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before
    national seeking to exercise rights as a self-employed              the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 23 June
    person to demonstrate                                               1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                        represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana, of its Legal Service,
                                                                        and Olivier Couvert-Castéra, a national civil servant on
                                                                        secondment to that Service, acting as Agents, with an address
    a) that this share of the profits of the business (disre-           for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
        garding any alternative source of support) will be              Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
        sufficient to maintain and accommodate himself and
        any dependants without recourse to employment (as               The Commission of the European Communities claims that
        opposed to self-employment) or to public funds, and             the Court should:
                                                                        — declare that, by communicating to it a programme for the
    b) that until his business provides him with such an                     implementation of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21
        income (disregarding any alternative source of support)              May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment (1)
        he will have sufficient additional funds to maintain and             which is not in conformity with that directive as regards
        accommodate himself and any dependants without                       the Brussels-Capital Region, the Kingdom of Belgium has
        recourse to employment (as opposed to self-                          failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive and, in
        employment) or to public funds?                                      particular, under Article 17 thereof;
                                                                        — order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
5. If the answer to the preceding questions is that a Bulgarian
    national who is an illegal entrant may rely upon directly           Pleas in law and main arguments
    effective rights of establishment under the Agreement,
    then
                                                                        The Belgian authorities were required, in accordance with
                                                                        Article 3 of the directive, to ensure that the Brussels-Capital
                                                                        Region was provided with a system for the collection of urban
    a) what factors, under such an Agreement, should the                waste water by 31 December 1998 at the latest. In addition,
        national court take into account in determining                 the Belgian authorities were required, whether as regards
        whether any breach by the competent authorities of              fulfilment of the obligations imposed in Article 5(2) of the
        that person’s directly effective rights was sufficiently        directive or as regards eligibility under Article 5(4) thereof, to
        serious to give rise to a right to reparation in damages        ensure that, before being discharged into the River Senne,
        against the Member State concerned; and, in particular,         the water in question underwent secondary treatment and
                                                                        additional treatment in respect of its nitrogen and phosphorus
                                                                        content. That treatment system was required to be set up by
                                                                        31 December 1998 at the latest. The Belgian authorities
    b) in the state of Community law at the relevant time (i.e.,        propose to discharge the above-mentioned obligations by
        when the decisions of August/September 1996 to                  constructing two waste water treatment plants in the Brussels-
        refuse the Applicant’s application for leave to remain          Capital Region, located to the north and to the south
        as a self-employed person, and/or the decision to               of Brussels respectively. However, it is apparent from the
        detain the Applicant, were taken), did the approach             implementation programme sent by the Kingdom of Belgium
        adopted by the competent national authorities consti-           to the Commission on 3 July 1996 that the plant to the north
        tute a ‘grave and manifest disregard’ of a superior rule        of the city will not be operational by the date provided for by
        of law?                                                         the directive, namely 31 December 1998 and that it will not
                                                                        become operational until five years later, that is to say, in
                                                                        2003. As to the plant to the south of Brussels, this should be
                                                                        completed sooner, but not before a date after that laid down
                                                                        by the directive. Moreover, several waste water collecting
(1) OJ 1994 L 358, p. 1.                                                systems to the north and south will not be operational by the
                                                                        date prescribed.
                                                                        (1) OJ L 135 of 30.5.1991, p. 40.


title: Case C-106/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Szczecinie (Poland) lodged on 28 February 2017 — Paweł Hofsoe v LVM Landwirtschaftlicher Versicherungsverein Münster a.G.

text:
               26.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 202/8

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Szczecinie (Poland) lodged on 28 February 2017 — Paweł Hofsoe v LVM Landwirtschaftlicher Versicherungsverein Münster a.G.
   (Case C-106/17)
   (2017/C 202/13)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Sąd Okręgowy w Szczecinie

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Paweł Hofsoe

      Defendant: LVM Landwirtschaftlicher Versicherungsverein Münster a.G. having its place of establishment in Münster

      Question referred

   Must the reference, in Article 13(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (1), to Article 11(1)(b) thereof be interpreted as meaning that a natural person who is engaged in, inter alia, obtaining damages from insurers, and who relies on the acquisition of a debt on a contractual basis from the party directly injured may bring an action for that debt against the civil-liability insurer of the person responsible for a road accident, which has its registered office in a Member State other than the Member State of the place of domicile of the injured party, before a court of the Member State in which that injured party is domiciled?

      (1)  OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1.


title: Notice of open competitions

text:
C 221/24        EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                3.8.1999
                                                               III
                                                             (Notices)
                                            COURT OF JUSTICE
                                          NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITIONS
                                                       (1999/C 221/07)
         The Court of Justice of the European Communities has advertised in Official Journal of the European
         Communities C 221 A of 3 August 1999 the following open competitions:
         Danish edition
         CJ/LA/31 (lawyer-linguists of Danish mother-tongue)
         Finnish edition
         CJ/LA/32 (lawyer-linguists of Finnish mother-tongue)
         Swedish edition
         CJ/LA/36 (lawyer-linguists of Swedish mother-tongue)
         To obtain a copy of the Official Journal please apply to the Personnel Division of the Court of Justice of
         the European Communities, L-2925 Luxembourg.


title: Case C-280/14 P: Appeal brought on 9 June 2014 by the Italian Republic against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 28 March 2014 in Case T-117/10 Italian Republic v Commission

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/35

         Appeal brought on 9 June 2014 by the Italian Republic against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 28 March 2014 in Case T-117/10 Italian Republic v Commission
   (Case C-280/14 P)
   2014/C 315/57
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant submits that the Court should:

               —

               set aside, in accordance with Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 28 March 2014 in Case T-117/10, concerning the action brought by the Italian Government under Articles 263 TFEU and 264 TFEU for annulment of European Commission Decision No C(2009) 10350 of 22 December 2009, notified on 23 December 2009, concerning the cancellation of part of the contribution from the European Regional Development Fund allocated to Italy for the operational programme POR Puglia, Objective I, 2000-2006;

               —

               consequently, annul, pursuant to Article 61 of Statute of the Court of Justice, that European Commission decision on its substance and order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of its appeal, the Italian Republic has put forward the following grounds of appeal:

                  First ground: infringement of the principle of audi alteram partem and failure to state reasons
               The General Court rejected the first two pleas in law — having dealt with them together — relating to the evaluations made by the Commission in respect of the first- and second-level checks. According to the appellant, the two matters were, however, quite distinct, inasmuch as each gave rise to a separate objection in respect of the efficiency and reliability of the checks. The contested decision listed the various objections raised against the regional checks as ‘heads of complaint’, all of which led to the sole and final conclusion that the regional checks were unreliable and that there was a risk of harm to the EU budget which justified a flat-rate correction of 10 %. Thus, the different ‘heads of complaint’ should have been examined separately, since any exclusion or reduction of one or more of one of them would have affected all of them taken together. Consequently, examination of such diverse arguments in a joint and mixed fashion, as carried out by the General Court, impeded full and proper consideration of the issues of fact and law raised by the Italian Government and also resulted in a clear failure to state reasons: by acting in this way, the General Court failed to explain fully, as it was required to do, why it considered the different grounds of objection to be unfounded.

                  Second ground: breach of Article 39(2)(c) and 39(3) of Regulation No 1260/1999, (1) and of Article 4 of Regulation No 438/2001 (2); infringement of the principles relating to the burden of proof; material inaccuracy of the findings of facts in comparison with those resulting from the case-file before the General Court; distortion of the evidence adduced before the General Court.
               The appellant claims that the General Court distorted the uncontested facts and the evidence from the case-file, in particular the fact that the Italian authorities had analysed, on an individual basis, the evaluations made by the Commission’s inspectors concerning the deficiencies identified in nine first-level checks. According to the appellant, the General Court should have recognised that the contested decision was erroneous in the part pertaining to those nine checks, and should therefore have upheld the Italian Government’s submissions that the Commission had breached Article 39(2) and (3) of Regulation No 1260/1999, given that it had adopted a decision to make a flat-rate correction of 10 % without there being any proof of irregularities from the sample of first-level checks, and (even if the other irregularities are assumed to have occurred) in a manner which was certainly excessive in the light of the principle of proportionality, as laid down in Article 39 of Regulation No 1260/1999.
               The General Court disregarded the documents in the case-file relating to the findings of facts pertaining to the progress of the checks inasmuch as it failed to take into account the actual quantitative (the threshold agreed with the Commission) and qualitative development of the first- and second-level checks which occurred during 2009.
               Finally, the General Court distorted the uncontested facts and evidence from the case-file, and breached the articles cited above, by taking the view that the contested decision was justified because the Italian authorities had not demonstrated the progress made by the paying authority.

                  Third ground: breach of Article 39(2)(c) and 39(3) of Regulation No 1260/1999, and of Article 10 of Regulation No 438/2001; infringement of the principles relating to the burden of proof; material inaccuracy of the findings of facts in comparison with those resulting from the case-file before the General Court; distortion of the evidence adduced before the General Court.
               According to the appellant, the findings of the General Court are based on an entirely abstract reconstruction of the de facto situation relating to the progress made and the distribution of second-level checks. The General Court should have annulled the part of the decision concerning the analysis made by the Commission in respect of the second-level checks and their unreliability, which completely lacked any credible evidence as to the existence and size of any actual risk for the ERDF.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (OJ 1999 L 161, p. 1).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 438/2001 of 2 March 2001 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 as regards the management and control systems for assistance granted under the Structural Funds (OJ 2001 L 63, p. 21).


title: Action brought on 14 May 1996 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic (Case C-166/96)

text:
No C 210/6              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       20 . 7 . 96
Action brought on 14 May 1996 by the Commission of the                 The applicant claims that the Court should :
 European Communities against the Portuguese Republic
                         ( Case C-166/96 )                             — declare that, by failing to adopt in their entirety the laws,
                                                                             regulations or administrative provisions necessary to
                           ( 96/C 210/ 11 )
                                                                             comply with Commission Directive 92/69/EEC of
                                                                             31 July 1992 adapting to technical progress for the 17th
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought                        time Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                   laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating
14 May 1996 by the Commission of the European                                to the classification, packaging and labelling of
Communities, represented by Francisco de Sousa Fialho,                       dangerous substances ^), the Portuguese Republic has
acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg                   failed to fulfil its obligations under the third paragraph
at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service,              of Article 189 of the EC Treaty and Article 3 of Directive
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                                    92/69/EEC,
                                                                       — declare , in the alternative, that by failing to inform
The applicant claims that the Court should :                                 the Commission immediately thereof, the Portuguese
                                                                             Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
— declare that, by failing to adopt in their entirety the laws,              same provisions,
     regulations or administrative provisions necessary to
     comply with Commission Directive 92/32/EEC of                     — order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs .
     30 April 1992 amending for the seventh time Directive
     67/548/EEC on the approximation of laws, regulations
     and administrative provisions relating to the                     Pleas in law and main arguments
     classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous
     substances ( ] ), the Portuguese Republic has failed to           The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
     fulfil its obligations under the third paragraph of               in Case C-l 65/96 ( 2 ). The time limit for transposing the
     Article 189 of the EC Treaty and Article 3 of Directive           Directive expired on 31 October 1993 .
     92/32/EEC ,
                                                                       (>) OJ No L 383 , 29 . 12 . 1992 , p . 13 .
— declare, in the alternative, that by failing to inform               ( 2 ) See page 5 of this Official Journal .
     the Commission immediately thereof, the Portuguese
     Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
     same provisions,
— order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs .
                                                                       Action brought on 14 May 1996 by the Commission of the
                                                                         European Communities against the Portuguese Republic
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                ( Case C-168/96 )
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those                                          ( 96/C 210/ 13 )
in Case C-l 65/96 ( 2 ). The time limit for transposing the
Directive expired on 31 October 1993 .                                 An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
                                                                       before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
(') OJ No L 154 , 5 . 6 . 1992 , p . 1 .                               on 14 May 1996 by the Commission of the European
(2 ) See page 5 of this Official Journal .                             Communities, represented by Francisco de Sousa Fialho,
                                                                       acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                                                                       at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service,
                                                                       Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should :
Action brought on 14 May 1996 by the Commission of the                 — declare that, by failing to adopt in their entirety the laws,
 European Communities against the Portuguese Republic                        regulations or administrative provisions necessary to
                         ( Case C-167/96 )                                   comply with Commission Directive 93/67/EEC of
                           ( 96/C 210/12 )                                   20 July 1993 laying down the principles for assessment
                                                                             of risks to man and the environment of substances
                                                                             notified in accordance with Council Directive
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought                        67/548/EEC ( ] ), the Portuguese Republic has failed to
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                   fulfil its obligations under the third paragraph of
14 May 1996 by the Commission of the European                                Article 189 of the EC Treaty and Article 8 of Directive
Communities, represented by Francisco de Sousa Fialho,                       93 /67/EEC ,
acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg
at the office of Carlos Gômez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service,        — declare, in the alternative, that by failing to inform
Wagner Centre , Kirchberg.                                                   the Commission immediately thereof, the Portuguese