title: Case C-89/17: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) London (United Kingdom) made on 20 February 2017 — Secretary of State for the Home Department v Rozanne Banger

text:
               24.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/7

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) London (United Kingdom) made on 20 February 2017 — Secretary of State for the Home Department v Rozanne Banger
   (Case C-89/17)
   (2017/C 129/09)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) London

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Secretary of State for the Home Department

      Defendant: Rozanne Banger

      Questions referred

               1.

               Do the principles contained in the decision in Immigration Appeal Tribunal and Surinder Singh, ex parte Secretary of State for the Home Department (Case C-370/90) [1992] operate so as to require a Member State to issue or, alternatively, facilitate the provision of a residence authorisation to the non-Union unmarried partner of a EU citizen who, having exercised his Treaty right of freedom of movement to work in a second Member State, returns with such partner to the Member State of his nationality?

               2.

               Alternatively, is there a requirement to issue or, alternatively, facilitate the provision of such residence authorisation by virtue of European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38/EC (1) on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States (‘the Directive’)?

               3.

               Where a decision to refuse a residence authorisation is not founded on an extensive examination of the personal circumstances of the Applicant and is not justified by adequate or sufficient reasons is such decision unlawful as being in breach of Article 3(2) of the Citizens Directive?

               4.

               Is a rule of national law which precludes an appeal to a court or tribunal against a decision of the executive refusing to issue a residence card to a person claiming to be an extended family member compatible with the Directive?

      (1)  Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC OJ 2004, L 158, p. 77


title: Case C-183/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München lodged on  13 April 2006  — RUMA GmbH v Oberfinanzdirektion Nürnberg

text:
               17.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/27

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München lodged on 13 April 2006 — RUMA GmbH v Oberfinanzdirektion Nürnberg
   (Case C-183/06)
   (2006/C 143/51)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Finanzgericht München
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: RUMA GmbH

      Defendant: Oberfinanzdirektion Nürnberg
   Question referred
   Is the Combined Nomenclature (CN), in the version of Annex I to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1789/2003 (1) of 11 September 2003 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, to be interpreted as meaning that keypads which have non-conductive contact pins on the underside are to be classified under heading 8538?

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 281, p. 1.


title: Case T-360/11: Action brought on 17 June 2011 — Fercal — Consultadoria e Serviços v OHIM — Parfums Rochas (PATRIZIA ROCHA)

text:
               8.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 298/19

         Action brought on 17 June 2011 — Fercal — Consultadoria e Serviços v OHIM — Parfums Rochas (PATRIZIA ROCHA)
   (Case T-360/11)
   2011/C 298/34
   Language in which the application was lodged: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: Fercal — Consultadoria e Serviços Lda (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: António J. Rodrigues, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Parfums Rochas SAS

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM notified on 21 April 2011 (Case R 2355/2010-2) in the cancellation proceedings Patrizia Rocha/Rochas and, therefore, adjudicate upon the appeal against the decision of 27 September 2010 in the opposition B-001559361.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: PATRIZIA ROCHA

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Parfums Rochas SAS

      Mark or sign cited in opposition:‘ROCHAS’

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed as inadmissible.

      Pleas in law: The time-limit for filing an appeal expired on 28 January 2011.
   The applicant sent a notice of appeal by post on 27 January 2011, the day before the last day of the time-limit.


title: Case C-117/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division), by order of that court of 14 December 2000, in the case of KB against 1) National Health Service Pensions Agency, 2) Secretary of State for Health

text:
19.5.2001              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 150/13
     b)    subsequent control of the effectiveness and safety of       Pleas in law and main arguments
           the medicinal product is possibly made more diffi-
           cult by the fact that the marketing authorisation for
           the original medicinal product has been withdrawn;          The period for compliance laid down in the directive referred
                                                                       to in the conclusions of the Commission expired on 1 January
                                                                       1993 without the United Kingdom having enacted the pro-
     c)    the medicinal product imported as a parallel import
                                                                       visions necessary to implement Articles 5(1) and 6(1) of that
           has been widely used over many years in Member
                                                                       directive. The United Kingdom is therefore in breach of
           States and it is improbable that its continued sale
                                                                       Articles 3 and 13 of the said directive.
           presents a danger to public health?
3.   If, in the situation referred to in Question 1, Articles 28
     and 30 EC allow it to be found that the marketing                 (1) OJ L 76, 23.03.1992, p. 14.
     authorisation granted for a parallel import has expired,
     may it be decided that the marketing authorisation for
     the parallel import expired immediately the original
     marketing authorisation was withdrawn, without
     allowing the parallel importer any time to adapt his
     activity? Do any of the circumstances referred to in
     Question 2 affect the question whether it may be decided
     that the marketing authorisation for a parallel import
     expires immediately?
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal
                                                                       (England & Wales) (Civil Division), by order of that court
                                                                       of 14 December 2000, in the case of KB against 1) National
                                                                       Health Service Pensions Agency, 2) Secretary of State for
                                                                                Health
                                                                                (Case C-117/01)
Action brought on 14 March 2001 by the Commission of
 the European Communities against the United Kingdom
                                                                                (2001/C 150/25)
                        (Case C-115/01)
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by an order of the Court of Appeal
                        (2001/C 150/24)                                (England & Wales) (Civil Division) of 14 December 2000,
                                                                       which was received at the Court Registry on 15 March 2001,
                                                                       for a preliminary ruling in the case of KB against 1) National
An action against the United Kingdom was brought before the            Health Service Pensions Agency, 2) Secretary of State for
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 14 March               Health, on the following question:
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Mr Richard Wainwrightas agent, with an
address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                       Does the exclusion of the female-to-male transsexual partner
                                                                       of a female member of the National Health Service Pension
                                                                       Scheme, which limits the material dependant’s benefit to her
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                            widower, constitute sex discrimination in contravention of
                                                                       Article 141 EC and Directive 75/117 (1)?
—    declare that, having failed to implement Articles 5(1) and
     6(1) of Council Directive 92/13/EEC (1) of 25 February
     1992 coordinating the laws, regulations and administrat-          (1) Council Directive 75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the
     ive provisions relating to the application of Community               approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the
     rules on the procurement procedures of entities operating             application of the principle of equal pay for men and women (OJ
     in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications                L 45, 19.02.1975, p. 19).
     sectors into national law, the United Kingdom is in breach
     of Articles 3 and 13 of the said directive;
—    order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.


title: Case T-125/05: Action brought on 18 March 2005 by Umwelt- und Ingenieurtechnik GmbH Dresden against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               14.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 115/37

         Action brought on 18 March 2005 by Umwelt- und Ingenieurtechnik GmbH Dresden against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-125/05)
   (2005/C 115/66)
   Language of the case: German
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 18 March 2005 by Umwelt- und Ingenieurtechnik GmbH Dresden, Dresden (Germany), represented by H. Robl, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of 23 December 2004 refusing to award a contract to the applicant;

               —

               annul the decision of 23 December 2004 awarding a contract to All Trade S.r.l;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant challenges the decision of the Commission of 23 December 2004 not to award the applicant Public Contract No AIDCO/A6/FP/co/2004/D/45370, Contract No 90-127 in the tender procedure 'Plan Improvement Project for South Ukraine NPP,' concerning a measure to introduce an intelligent control system for water quality in the nuclear power station in South Ukraine. The applicant also challenges the simultaneous decision to award this contract to the competitor All Trade S.r.l.
   The applicant argues that the Commission:

               —

               erroneously assessed that the applicant's tender did not comply with point 2.2.6 of the technical specification, although all of the services offered by the applicant fully satisfied the specification and this was confirmed by references,

               —

               erroneously stated that the applicant did not comply with points 2.3.1 and 2.3.4 of the technical specification due to insufficient explanations and information, although the applicant's explanations were both extensive and exhaustive, and

               —

               breached the duty to provide clarification and exceeded its discretion.

         The applicant contends further that in assessing the price, the Commission incorrectly, and in breach of the requirements of paragraph 1.3 of the instructions to tenders based its decision solely on the basic tender price and thus, in spite of their relevance, the pricing of spare parts and maintenance costs were not taken into consideration.
   Finally, the applicant submits that the competitor All Trade S.r.l. does not provide any guarantee, either by its expertise or financial standing or by its technical experience, that it will successfully carry out the project in question.


title: Case C-642/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 14 December 2016 — Junek Europ-Vertrieb GmbH v Lohmann & Rauscher International GmbH & Co. KG

text:
               3.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/26

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 14 December 2016 — Junek Europ-Vertrieb GmbH v Lohmann & Rauscher International GmbH & Co. KG
   (Case C-642/16)
   (2017/C 104/39)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Junek Europ-Vertrieb GmbH

      Defendant: Lohmann & Rauscher International GmbH & Co. KG

      Questions referred

   Must Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1) be interpreted as meaning that the proprietor of the mark can oppose further commercialisation of a medical device imported from another Member State in its original internal and external packaging, to which the importer has affixed an additional external label, unless

               —

               it is established that reliance on trade-mark rights by the proprietor in order to oppose the marketing of the overstickered product under that trade mark would contribute to an artificial partitioning of the markets between Member States;

               —

               it is shown that the new labelling cannot adversely affect the original condition of the product inside the packaging;

               —

               the packaging states clearly who overstickered the product and the name of the manufacturer;

               —

               the presentation of the overstickered product is not such as to be liable to damage the reputation of the trade mark and of its proprietor; thus, the label must not be defective, of poor quality, or untidy; and

               —

               the importer gives notice to the trade mark proprietor before the overstickered product is placed on the market, and, on demand, provides him with a specimen of that product.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ L 78, 24.3.2009, p. 1).


title: Case T-140/06: Action brought on  8 May 2006  — Philip Morris Products v OHIM (Shape of a packet of cigarettes)

text:
               15.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/32

         Action brought on 8 May 2006 — Philip Morris Products v OHIM (Shape of a packet of cigarettes)
   (Case T-140/06)
   (2006/C 165/63)
   Language in which the appeal was lodged: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Philip Morris Products SA (Neuchâtel, Switzerland) (represented by T. van Innis and C.S. Moreau, lawyers)

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

               —

               principally, annulment of the contested decision and an order that OHIM bear the costs;

               —

               in the alternative, appointment of an expert or a board of experts entrusted with the tasks proposed by the applicant and order that OHIM will be required to advance the costs incurred in the performance of those tasks.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Three-dimensional trade mark representing a packet of cigarettes for goods in Class 34 (application No. 2 681 351)

      Decision of the Examiner: registration refused

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal rejected

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94. The applicant contends that the trade mark has a sufficiently distinctive character and cannot be said to be common to all the goods in question.


title: References for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di Torino by orders of that court of 10 March 1995 and 18 April 1995 in criminal proceedings pending before that court against unidentified persons (Cases C-74/95 and C-129/95)

text:
12 . 8 . 95            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 208/ 1
                                                                   I
                                                            (Information)
                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                         COURT OF JUSTICE
References for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura                  Agricoltori della Provincia di Rovigo, Cirillo Brena,
Circondariale di Torino by orders of that court of 10 March           Associazione Polesana Coltivatori Diretti di Rovigo and
1995 and 18 April 1995 in criminal proceedings pending                Consorzio Cooperative Pescatori del Polesine, represented
        before that court against unidentified persons                by Yvone Cacciavillani , with an address for service in
                ( Cases C-74/95 and C-129/95 )                        Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alain Lorang, 51 Rue
                                                                      Albert l er, against the order of the Court of First Instance of
                          ( 95/C 208/01 )
                                                                      the European Communities of 21 February 1995 in Case
                                                                      T-l 17/94 against the Commission of the European
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                Communities .
European Communities by orders of the Pretura
Circondariale ( District Magistrate's Court ), Turin, of
10 March 1995 and 18 April 1995 , which were received at              The appellants claims that the Court should :
the Court Registry on, respectively, 30 March 1995 and
20 April 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the criminal              ( a ) annul the order of the Court of First Instance of
proceedings pending before that court against unidentified                  21 February 1995 in Case T-l 17/94 ( 1 ), which declared
persons on a question concerning the interpretation of                      inadmissible the appellant's action under Article 173 of
Council Directive 90/270/EEC (') on the minimum safety                      the EC Treaty;
and health requirements for work with display screen
equipment and, in particular, of Article 2 ( c ), Article 9(1 )       ( b ) declare the action admissible:
and ( 2 ), Article 4 and Article 5 in conjunction with
Article 2 ( b ) and (c ), and of Article 4 and Article 5 in           (c ) reimburse the appellant's costs , as provided for by
conjunction with Sections 2 and 3 of the Annex to the                       law .
Directive .
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
(M OJ No L 156 , 29 . 5 . 1990 , p . 14 .
                                                                      The appellants allege error of law, infringement of the
                                                                      second paragraph of Article 173 of the EC Treaty, and error
                                                                      in the premise that the conditions for an action were not
                                                                      met. By its contested decision, the Commission of the
Appeal by the Associazione Agricoltori della Provincia di             European Communities financed a programme of actions
Rovigo, Cirillo Brena, Associazione Polesana Coltivatori              instrumental in creating a Po Delta park . Such measures,
Diretti di Rovigo and Consorzio Cooperative Pescatori del             which affected only the delta and were expressly aimed at
Polesine against the order of the Court of First Instance of          preserving its habitat in anticipation of the future park,
the European Communities of 21 February 1995 in Case                  required that agricultural interests, or at least the
T-l 17/94 , Associazione Agricoltori della Provincia di               organizations most representative of such interests, should
                                                                      be consulted .
Rovigo, Consorzio Cooperative Pescatori del Polesine,
Cirillo Brena, Mauro Girello and Greguoldo Daniele
  against the Commission of the European Communities                  Although there is no specific provision expressly requiring
                                                                      the state to consult the economic and social interests
                       ( Case C-142/ 95 P )                           concerned , there can nevertheless be no doubt as to the
                          ( 95 /C 208/02 )                            existence of qualities which are peculiar to them or of
                                                                      factual situations which differentiate them from all other
An appeal was brought before the Court of Justice of the              persons, sufficient to confer an interest in bringing an action
European Communities on 4 May 1 995 by the Associazione               under Article 173 of the EC Treaty.


title: Case C-273/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht, by order of that court of 14 April 2000 in the appeal proceedings brought by Dr Ralf Sieckmann

text:
9.9.2000               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 259/9
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespa-                   Must the second paragraph of Article 288 EC (formerly the
tentgericht, by order of that court of 14 April 2000 in the             second paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty) be interpret-
    appeal proceedings brought by Dr Ralf Sieckmann                     ed as meaning that, where an application is made for an order
                                                                        requiring the Commission of the European Communities to
                         (Case C-273/00)                                participate in an expert assessment which has already been
                                                                        ordered as against the Belgian State, on the basis that the
                         (2000/C 259/15)                                assessment procedure and the expert’s final report are to be
                                                                        declared common to the parties and binding on the Com-
                                                                        mission of the European Communities; and the expert’s tasks
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  in that connection include inter alia an examination of the
European Communities by order of the Bundespatentgericht                responses and behaviour of the Commission of the European
(Federal Patents Court) of 14 April 2000, received at the Court         Communities, its bodies and employees from the time it
Registry on 10 July 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the               became aware of the dioxin contamination, and of the
appeal proceedings brought by Dr Ralf Sieckmann on the                  appropriateness of the measures taken by it and the impact
following questions:                                                    thereof on the adverse effects and damage sustained by the
                                                                        respondents; and the application in question is made with a
1.   Is Article 2 of the First Council Directive of 21 December         view to the subsequent institution of substantive proceedings
     1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States                  regarding the respective liability of the Belgian State and the
     relating to trade marks (89/104/EEC) (1) to be interpreted         European Community in respect of the dioxin crisis, that
     as meaning that the expression ‘signs capable of being             application constitutes a non-contractual liability claim over
     represented graphically’ covers only those sings which             which the Court of Justice of the European Communities,
     can be reproduced directly in their visible form or is it          alternatively the Court of First Instance of the European
     also to be construed as meaning signs — such as odours             Communities, has exclusive jurisdiction?
     or sounds — which cannot be perceived visually per se
     but can be reproduced indirectly using certain aids?
2.   If the first question is answered in terms of a broad
     interpretation, are the requirements of graphic representa-
     bility set out in Article 2 satisfied where an odour is
     reproduced
     (a)    By a chemical formula;
     (b) By a description (to be published);
     (c)    By means of a deposit, or                                   Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hessisches
                                                                        Finanzgericht by order of that court of 21 February
     (d) By a combination of the abovementioned surrogate               2000 in the case of Turbon International GmbH against
            reproductions?                                              Oberfinanzdirektion Koblenz Zoll- und Verbrauchsteuer-
                                                                                abteilung
(1) OJ L of 11 February 1989, p. 1.
                                                                                (Case C-276/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 259/17)
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van
Beroep te Gent, by order of that court of 28 June 2000                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
in the case of the European Community, acting through                   European Communities by order of the Hessisches Finanzge-
the European Commission, against (1) First N.V. and                     richt of 21 February 2000, received at the Court Registry on
                          (2) Franex N.V.                               12 July 2000, for a preliminary ruling the case of Turbon
                                                                        International GmbH against Oberfinanzdirektion Koblenz Zoll
                                                                        und Verbrauchsteuerabteilung on the following question:
                         (Case C-275/00)
                         (2000/C 259/16)
                                                                        Is a compatible ink-jet cartridge, consisting of an ink cartridge
                                                                        (plastic casing, cellular material, metal screen, seals, tape seal,
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  labels), ink and packing materials, where both the ink cartridge
European Communities by order of the Hof van Beroep te                  and the ink can be used solely in an Epson Stylos Color printer,
Gent (Court of Appeal, Ghent) of 28 June 2000, received at
the Court Registry on 12 July 2000, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of the European Community, acting through the               —     to be classified under code number 3215 90 80 as a
European Commission, against (1) First N.V. and (2) Franex                    disposable, ink-filled cartridge (without integrated print
N.V. on the following question:                                               head) for ink-jet printers


title: Case T-67/14: Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2017 — Viraj Profiles v Council (Dumping — Imports of certain stainless steel wires originating in India — Determination of the cost of production — Selling, General and Administrative costs — Obligation to state reasons — Injury — Causal link — Complaint — Opening of the investigation — Manifest error of assessment)

text:
               21.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 277/30

         Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2017 — Viraj Profiles v Council
   (Case T-67/14) (1)

   ((Dumping - Imports of certain stainless steel wires originating in India - Determination of the cost of production - Selling, General and Administrative costs - Obligation to state reasons - Injury - Causal link - Complaint - Opening of the investigation - Manifest error of assessment))
   (2017/C 277/43)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Viraj Profiles Ltd (Maharashtra, India) (represented by: V. Akritidis and Y. Melin, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented: initially by B. Driessen, and subsequently by H. Marcos Fraile, acting as Agents, assisted by R. Bierwagen, C. Hipp and D. Reich, lawyers)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1106/2013 of 5 November 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain stainless steel wires originating in India (OJ 2013 L 298, p. 1), in so far as it concerns the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1106/2013 of 5 November 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain stainless steel wires originating in India, as far as it relates to Viraj Profiles Ltd;

               2.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Viraj Profiles;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 112, 14.4.2014.


title: Case F-6/06: Action brought on  13 January 2006  — Nicola Scafarto v Commission

text:
               22.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/34

         Action brought on 13 January 2006 — Nicola Scafarto v Commission
   (Case F-6/06)
   (2006/C 96/54)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Nicola Scafarto (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: A. D'Antuono and G. Somma, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare inapplicable, within the meaning of Article 241 EC, Article 12 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations;

               —

               annul the decision by which the appointing authority (AIPN) implicitly dismissed the applicant's complaint against Decision No 000617 of 17 March 2005;

               —

               annul only the part of that decision in which the AIPN placed the applicant in Grade A*6, first step, instead of A*8, first step;

               —

               order the defendant to replace the contested part of that decision with a part placing the applicant, with retroactive effect, in Grade A*8, first step;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the applicant all the amounts which he did not receive owing to the unlawfulness of the contested decisions, including interest;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, who was included on the reserve list for Competition EUR/A/155/2000 for Grades A6 and A7, was subsequently recruited by the Commission at Grade A*6 after the new Staff Regulations had come into force.
   By his application he claims primarily that the decision determining his grade infringes Article 31 of the Staff Regulations.
   He goes on to submit that, in any event, that decision is unlawful, in so far as its legal basis, Article 12 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations, is unlawful on the ground that it infringes the following principles: legal certainty, the protection of legitimate expectations, non-discrimination, equal treatment, reasonableness and proper administration. Finally and in the alternative, the applicant adds that even if the protection of legitimate expectations is not always absolute, any exception thereto and/or derogation therefrom must be duly justified, a condition which was not fulfilled in this case.


title: Case C-294/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 16 June 2014  — ADM Hamburg AG v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/37

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 16 June 2014 — ADM Hamburg AG v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt
   (Case C-294/14)
   2014/C 315/60
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Hamburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: ADM Hamburg AG

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt

      Question referred

   Is the factual condition laid down in the first sentence of Article 74(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (1) establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1063/2010 of 18 November 2010, (2) whereby the products declared for release for free circulation in the European Union must be the same products as exported from the beneficiary country in which they are considered to originate, fulfilled in a case such as the present case, where several part-consignments of crude palm kernel oil are exported from different GSP exporting countries from those in which they are considered to originate and imported into the European Union not as physically separate consignments, but are all exported after being poured into the same tank of the cargo vessel and imported as a mixture in that tank into the European Union, such that it can be ruled out that other products (not enjoying preferential treatment) have been put into the tank of the cargo vessel during the time the products were being transported until they were released for free circulation?

      (1)  OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 2010 L 307, p. 1.


title: Case F-88/11: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 24 April 2013 — BX v Commission (Civil service — Open competition — Competition EPSO/AD/148/09 — Failure to include the applicant in the reserve list)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/84

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 24 April 2013 — BX v Commission
   (Case F-88/11) (1)

   (Civil service - Open competition - Competition EPSO/AD/148/09 - Failure to include the applicant in the reserve list)
   2013/C 225/194
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: BX (Washington, United States) (represented by: R. Rata, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and B. Eggers, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Civil Service Tribunal — Application seeking the annulment of the decision of the selection board not to include the applicant in the reserve list for competition EPSO/AD/148/09 — RO-Administrator (AD 5).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders BX to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 347, 26.11.2011, p. 45.


title: ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 22 April 1996 in Case T-23/96 R: Elsa De Persio v. Commission of the European Communities

text:
No C 210/ 16            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     20 . 7 . 96
Article 5 ( c ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 804/68 in the milk and            ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
milk products sector ( OJ No L 90 , 1984 , p . 13 ) — the                                      of 17 April 1996
President of the First Chamber (Extended Composition ) of
the Court of First Instance made an order on 27 March                  in Case T-3/93 ( 92 ): Société anonyme à participation
1996 , the operative part of which is as follows :                     ouvrière Compagnie nationale Air France v. Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities ( J )
1 , the name of J. F. van Rooy is removed from the list of                          (Competition — Taxation of costs)
      applicants in Case T-533/93;                                                               ( 96/C 210/41 )
2 , the parties are ordered to bear their own costs.                                  (Language of the case: French)
(') OJ No C 334, 9 . 12 . 1993 .                                       In Case T-3/93 ( 92 ): Société anonyme à participation
                                                                       ouvrière Compagnie nationale Air France, established in
                                                                       Paris, represented by Eduard Marissens, of the Brussels Bar,
                                                                       with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
                                                                       of Lucy Dupong, 14a rue des Bains, v . Commission of the
                                                                       European Communities ( Agents: Francisco Enrique
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             Gonzalez-Diaz and Géraud de Bergues ), supported by
                                                                       United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
                         of 17 April 1996                              ( Agents : John D. Colahan and Christopher Vajda ), with an
in Case T-2/93 ( 92 ): Société anonyme à participation                 address for service in Luxembourg at the British Embassy,
ouvrière Compagnie nationale Air France v. Commission of               14 boulevard Roosevelt, and British Airways pic,
                  the European Communities ( 1 )                       established at Hounslow ( United Kingdom ), represented by
               (Competition — Taxation of costs)                       Richard Fowler, QC, of the Bar of England and Wales , and
                                                                       William Allan and James E. Flynn, Solicitors, with an
                            ( 96/C 210/40 )
                                                                       address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                       Loesch and Wolter, 11 rue Goethe — application for
                  (Language of the case: French)                       taxation of the costs payable by the applicant to the
                                                                       intervener British Airways pic pursuant to the judgment of
In Case T-2/93 ( 92 ): Société anonyme à participation                 the Court of First Instance of 24 May 1994 in Case T-3/93
ouvrière Compagnie nationale Air France, established in                Air France v. Commission [ 1994 ] ECR 11-121 — the Court
Paris, represented by Eduard Marissens, of the Brussels Bar,           of First Instance ( Third Chamber, Extended Composition ),
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers              composed of C. P. Briët, President, B. Vesterdorf, P. Lindh,
of Lucy Dupong, 14a rue des Bains , v . Commission of the              A. Potocki and J. D. Cooke , Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
European Communities ( Agents : Francisco Enrique                      made an order on 17 April 1996 , in which it:
Gonzalez-Diaz and Géraud de Bergues ), supported by
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland                   fixes the sum of the total costs payable by the applicant to
 ( Agents : John D. Colahan and Christopher Vajda ), with an           the intervener British Airways pic at £ 40 000.
address for service in Luxembourg at the British Embassy,
 14 boulevard Roosevelt, TAT SA, established at Tours                  (') OJ No C 45 , 17. 2 . 1993 .
 ( France ), represented by Antoine Winckler , of the Paris Bar,
and Romano Subiotto, Solicitor, with an address for service
 in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Elvinger and Hoss , 15
 Côte d'Eich, and British Airways pic, established at
Hounslow (United Kingdom ), represented by William Allan
 and James E. Flynn, Solicitors , with an address for service in                      ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
 Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch and Wolter, 1 1 rue                        OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 Goethe — application for taxation of the costs payable by
 the applicant to the intervener British Airways pic pursuant                                  of 22 April 1996
 to the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 May              in Case T-23 /96 R: Eisa De Persio v. Commission of the
  1994 in Case T-2/93 Air France v . Commission [ 1 994] ECR                                European Communities
 11-323 — the Court of First Instance ( Third Chamber,                                            ( 96/C 210/42 )
 Extended Composition ), composed of C. P. Briët, President,
 B. Vesterdorf, P. Lindh , A. Potocki and J. D. Cooke, Judges;
 H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 17 April 1 996 , in                              (Language of the case: Italian)
 which it :
                                                                        In Case T-23/96 R: Eisa De Persio, an official of the
 fixes the sum of the total costs payable by the applicant to           Commission of the European Communities, represented by
 the intervener British Airways pic at £ 29 000.                        Giovanni Petroni and Franco Giampietro, of the Rome Bar,
                                                                        with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
                                                                        of Gilles Bouneau, 15 avenue du Bois, v . Commission of the
  (>) OJ No C 45 , 17 . 2 . 1993 .                                      European Communities ( Agent: Gianluigi Valsesia ) —
                                                                        application, first, for suspension of operation of the decision
                                                                        of the Commission of 22 December 1 995 transferring the
 ---pagebreak--- 20 . 7 . 96           EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 210/ 17
applicant to the Translation Service of that institution and,          ( Netherlands ), represented by Martijn van Empel, of the
second, for her immediate reassignment to the post which               Amsterdam Bar, and Thomas Janssens, of the Brussels Bar,
she occupied at the Office for Official Publications of the            with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
European Communities — the President of the Court of                   of Marc Loesch , 11 rue Goethe, v . Commission of
First Instance made an order on 22 April 1 996 , the operative         the European Communities ( Agent: Wouter Wils ) —
part of which is as follows :                                          application for suspension of operation of Commission
                                                                       Decision 95/55 1 /EC of 29 November 1995 relating to a
1 , the application for interim measures is dismissed;                 proceeding pursuant to Article 85 of the EC Treaty
                                                                       ( IV.34.179 , 34.202 , 216 — Stichting Certificatie
2,   the costs are reserved.
                                                                       Kraanverhuurbedrijf and the Federatie Nederlandse
                                                                       Kraanverhuurbedrijven, OJ No L 312 , 1995 , p . 79 ), and for
                                                                       access to the file opened in the context of that proceeding —
                                                                       the President of the Court of First Instance made an order on
                                                                       4 June 1996 , the operative part of which is as follows :
               ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
                                                                       1 , the application for interim measures is dismissed;
          OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                       2,   the costs are reserved.
                        of 3 June 1996
in Case T-41 /96 R Bayer AG v. Commission of the
                    European Communities
                         ( 96/C 210/43 )
               (Language of the case: German)                          Action brought on 13 May 1996 by Kish Glass Company
                                                                       Limited against Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
In Case T-41 /96 R : Bayer AG, with its registered office at
Leverkusen ( Germany ), represented by Joachim Sedemund ,                                       ( Case T-65 /96 )
of .the Cologne Bar, with an address for service in                                               ( 96/C 210/45 )
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May , 31
Grand-rue, against the Commission of the European
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
Communities ( Agents : Wouter Wils and Klaus Wiedner ) —
application for suspension of the operation of Article 2 of
the Commission Decision of 10 January 199 6 relating                   An action against the Commission of the European
to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC Treaty                      Communities was brought before the Court of First
(IV/34.279/F3 : Adalat ) — the President of the Court of First         Instance of the European Communities on 13 May 1996 by
Instance made an order on 3 June 1 996 , the operative part of         Kish Glass Company Limited, represented by Maurice
which is as follows :                                                   Byrne, Solicitor, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                                                                       at the Chambers of Arendt & Medernach, 8— 10 , rue
                                                                       Mathias Hardt .
 1 , operation of Article 2 of the decision is suspended;
2,   costs are reserved.
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                       — annul the decision of the Commission dated 2 1 February
                                                                            1996 in Case IV/34.193~Kish Glass,
                                                                       — order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs .
               ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
          OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
                        of 4 June 1996                                  The applicant, an Irish undertaking with limited liability,
 in      Case     T-18/96       R:      Stichting     Certificatie      which supplies glass products to all levels of trade ,
 Kraanverhuurbedrijf         and      Federatie      Nederlandse        challenges the Commission's refusal to take any action in
 Kraanverhuurbedrijven v. Commission of the European                    relation to its complaint concerning its supplier's abuse of a
                           Communities                                  dominant position . The abuse consisted in applying
                          ( 96/C 210/44 )                               dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with trading
                                                                        parties other than the applicant and restricting the supply of
                                                                        float glass to the applicant in 1987.
                 (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                        In the applicant's view, the contested decision should be
 In      Case     T-18/96       R:      Stichting      Certificatie     annulled on the following grounds :
 Kraanverhuurbedrijf,         established      at     Culemborg
 ( Netherlands )       and         Federatie         Nederlandse        — Infringement of an essential procedural requirement and
 Kraanverhuurbedrijven,         established     at Culemborg                of the rights of the defence . The Commission did not give


title: Case T-336/15: Action brought on 25 June 2015 — Windrush Aka v OHIM — Dammers (The Specials)

text:
               7.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/77

         Action brought on 25 June 2015 — Windrush Aka v OHIM — Dammers (The Specials)
   (Case T-336/15)
   (2015/C 294/92)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Windrush Aka LLP (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister and S. Britton, Solicitor)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Jerry Dammers (London, United Kingdom)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘The Specials’ — Community trade mark No 3 725 082

      Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for revocation

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 March 2015 in Case R 1412/2014-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the contested decision;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay its own costs and those incurred by the applicant.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Articles 15(1) and 15(2) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Action brought on 8 September 1998 by the French Republic against the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-332/98)

text:
C 327/14               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                    24.10.98
     5 of Directive 80/68/EEC (1), Ireland has failed to fulfil         in so far as it did not apply Article 90(2) of the EC
     its obligations under the Treaty;                                  Treaty;
Ð order Ireland to pay the costs.                                   Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
According to Article 4 of Council Directive 80/68/EEC,
Member States shall prohibit all direct discharge of                The contested decision was adopted following the
substances in List I annexed to the directive and according         judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case T-49/93
to Article 5 of the directive, Member States shall make             SocieÂteÂ Internationale de Diffusion et d'EÂdition (SIDE) v
subject to prior investigation and authorization all direct         Commission of the European Communities ([1995] ECR
discharge of substances in List II annexed to the directive.        II-2501).
Irish legislation at present does not prohibit direct               According to Article 1 of the contested decision, the aid
discharges by sanitary authorities of substances in List I to       granted to the Centre d'Exportation du Livre FrancËais
groundwater and the general licensing system instituted             (CELF) for handling small orders for French-language
for trade and sewage effluents does not apply to                    books as aid within the meaning of Article 92(1) of the
discharges from a sewer and trade effluent discharged by a          EC Treaty, but is compatible with the common market
sanitary authority in the course of the performance of its          because it satisfies the conditions to qualify for the benefit
powers and duties other than from a sewer.                          of the derogation provided for by Article 92(3)(d) of that
                                                                    Treaty. It is also clear from that article of the contested
                                                                    decision that, since the French Government failed to notify
(1) Council Directive of 17 December 1979 on the protection of
                                                                    that aid to the Commission before implementing it, the
    groundwater against pollution caused by certain dangerous
    substances (L 20, 26.1.1980, p. 43).                            aid was granted unlawfully.
                                                                    It is clear from the recitals in the preamble to the
                                                                    contested decision that the Commission considered that, in
                                                                    accordance with the case-law (judgment in Case C-387/92
                                                                    Banco Exterior de EspanÄa [1994] ECR 872, paragraph 21),
Action brought on 8 September 1998 by the French                    since the aid was compatible with the common market, it
Republic against the Commission of the European                     was not necessary for it to consider whether the aid could,
                           Communities                              by virtue of Article 90(2) of the Treaty, escape the
                                                                    prohibition laid down in Article 92. Furthermore, it is
                        (Case C-332/98)                             clear from the recitals in the preamble to the decision that,
                                                                    in any event, the Commission considered that the French
                          (98/C 327/22)                             Government had not established that CELF was entrusted
                                                                    with the operation of services of general economic
                                                                    interest, since no reference was made to CELF in any
                                                                    legislative or administrative measure.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
the European Communities on 8 September 1998 by the
French Republic, represented by Kareen Rispal-Bellanger,            The applicant government considers that, by failing to
Deputy Director for International Financial Law and                 consider whether the aid at issue falls within the scope of
Community Law in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs,                   Article 90(2) of the Treaty, the Commission committed an
and FreÂdeÂrik Million, ChargeÂ de Mission in the same              error of law. The case-law cited above applies only to
Ministry, acting as Agents, with an address for service in          existing' aid. In respect of new aid, such as that in the
Luxembourg at the French Embassy, 8 B Boulevard                     present case, such an examination is necessary since, in
Joseph II.                                                          the absence of notification, that aid could become the
                                                                    subject of recovery.
The French Republic claims that the Court should:
                                                                    Furthermore, the applicant government considers that the
                                                                    aid at issue does fall within the scope of Article 90(2) of
Ð annul the decision of the Commission of the European              the Treaty. It is not necessary, in order for that provision
     Communities of 10 June 1998 (C(1998) 728 final) (1)            to apply, for a body to be entrusted by a legislative or
 ---pagebreak--- 24.10.98               EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 327/15
administrative measure with the operation of services of               not only to the product covered by the authorisation
general economic interest, but is sufficient that that                 to place the corresponding medicinal product on the
responsibility results from public-law contracts entered               market' but also to the derivatives (salts and esters) of
into, as here, between the body in question and the public             the product, bearing in mind that, under Article 1 of
authorities. Furthermore, it is not necessary, in order for            Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92, product' must be
Article 90(2) of the Treaty to apply, for the body to hold a           construed as meaning the active ingredient or
monopoly in the operation of the services in question.                 combination of active ingredients of a medicinal
                                                                       product'?
(1) Not yet published in the OJ.
                                                                   D. If the above extension to the derivatives of the active
                                                                       ingredient is accepted, must Article 4 of Regulation
                                                                       (EEC) No 1768/92 be construed as meaning that the
                                                                       protection conferred by the SPC is not impaired by
                                                                       the health authority measure granting marketing
                                                                       authorisation and in particular by the active ingredient
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Commissione                  indicated in that authorisation as corresponding to the
dei Ricorsi contro i Provvedimenti dell'Ufficio Italiano               authorised medicinal product?
Brevetti e Marchi by order of 16 December 1997 in the
case of Merck & Co. Inc. v Ufficio Italiano Brevetti e
                             Marchi
                                                                   E. On the assumption, once again, that the suggested
                        (Case C-333/98)                                extension of the protection conferred by the SPC to
                                                                       the derivatives of the active ingredient is accepted,
                          (98/C 327/23)                                must the final phrase of Article 4 of Regulation (EEC)
                                                                       No 1768/92 be construed as meaning that the
                                                                       supplementary protection may be relied on for each of
                                                                       the medicinal products in so far as they have been
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       authorised by the health authority before the expiry of
European Communities by order of 16 December 1997
                                                                       the certificate, or is the first authorisation of the
from the Commissione dei Ricorsi contro i Provvedimenti
                                                                       medicinal product corresponding to the active
dell'Ufficio Italiano Brevetti e Marchi (Committee hearing
                                                                       ingredient sufficient?
Appeals against measures of the Italian Patent and
Trademark Office), which was received at the Court
Registry on 9 September 1998, for a preliminary ruling in
the case of Merck & Co. Inc. v Ufficio Italiano Brevetti e         F. Finally, if the active ingredient corresponding to the
Marchi (the Italian Patent and Trademark Office) on the                medicinal product which was the subject of the first
following questions:                                                   marketing authorisation is a salt or an ester of the
                                                                       patented substance, does the protection conferred by
                                                                       the SPC also extend to that substance and to its other
                                                                       derivatives?
A. May the recitals in the preamble to a Community
    regulation (in this case, recitals 13 and 17 in the
    preamble to Council Regulation (EC) No 1610/96) (1)            (1) OJ L 198, 8.8.1996, p. 30.
    be recognised as being prescriptive, and not solely as         (2) OJ L 182, 2.7.1992, p. 1.
    providing guidance for the interpretation of the
    regulation which they introduce?
B. On the assumption that the rules of authentic
    interpretation' are prescriptive and do not merely
    have an interpretative function, may recital 17 in             Action brought on 11 September 1998 by Commission of
    the preamble to Regulation (EC) No 1610/96 be                      the European Communities against Italian Republic
    recognised as having the status of a rule for the
    authentic interpretation of the provisions of Council                                 (Case C-334/98)
    Regulation (EC) No 1768/92 (2) to which that recital
    refers and, in particular, Article 4 of Regulation (EC)                                 (98/C 327/24)
    No 1768/92?
                                                                   An action against Italian Republic was brought before
C. If it is accepted that recital 17 in the preamble to            the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
    Regulation (EC) No 1610/96 does have the suggested             11 September 1998 by Commission of the European
    status as a rule of authentic interpretation, must             Communities, represented by Paolo Stancanelli, of its
    Article 4 of Regulation No 1768/92 be construed                Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service
    as meaning that the protection conferred by a                  in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
    supplementary protection certificate (SPC) extends             Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.


title: Case C-222/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Council of State) lodged on 7 May 2014  — Konstantinos Maistrellis v Minister for Justice, Transparency and Human Rights

text:
               21.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/8

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Council of State) lodged on 7 May 2014 — Konstantinos Maistrellis v Minister for Justice, Transparency and Human Rights
   (Case C-222/14)
   2014/C 235/11
   Language of the case: Greek

      Referring court

   Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Council of State)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Konstantinos Maistrellis

      Defendant: Minister for Justice, Transparency and Human Rights

      Question referred

   Must the provisions of Directive 96/34/EC (1) and Directive 2006/54/EC (2), in so far as they are applicable, be interpreted as precluding national regulations, such as the contested provision of the third sentence of Article 53(3) of Law 3528/2007, providing that if the civil servant’s wife does not work or exercise any profession the male spouse is not entitled to parental leave, unless it is considered that due to a serious illness or injury the wife is unable to meet the needs related to the upbringing of the child?

      (1)  Council Directive 96/34/EC of 3 June 1996 on the framework agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC (OJ 1996 L 145, p. 4).

      (2)  Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast) (OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23).


title: Case T-40/01: Action brought on 21 February 2001 by Scan Office Design S.A. against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 150/30              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     19.5.2001
Action brought on 20 February 2001 by Kabushiki Kaisha                  Decision of the Board of      Dismissal of the appeal.
Fernandes against the Office for Harmonization in the                   Appeal:
                        Internal Market
                                                                        Grounds of claim:             Infringement of article 8(1)(b) of
                                                                                Council Regulation 40/94 (1) or
                         (Case T-39/01)                                                               alternatively, infringement of a
                                                                                rule of law relating to the appli-
                                                                                cation of the Regulation — proof
                        (2001/C 150/59)                                                               of genuine use in the relevant
                                                                                Member States pursuant to
                                                                                article 43(3) of the Regulation.
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                        (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
                                                                            Community trade mark (OJ L 11, p. 1)
An action against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 20 February 2001 by Kabushiki
Kaisha Fernandes, Tokyo, Japan, represented by Richard
Hacon, Nicholas Phillips and Ian Wood of Rowe & Maw,
London. A further party to the proceedings before the Board
of Appeal was Richard John Harrison, Doncaster, United
Kingdom.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             Action brought on 21 February 2001 by Scan Office
                                                                        Design S.A. against Commission of the European Com-
                                                                                munities
—     annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the
      Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market dated
      4 December 2000 (Appeal No. R 0116/2000-1)                                                  (Case T-40/01)
—     order the Office to refuse the application to register the
      Community trade mark                                                                       (2001/C 150/60)
—     make an order for the applicant’s costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 21 February 2001 by Scan Office
                                                                        Design S.A. of Brussels, represented by Benoît Mertens and
Applicant for the Com-       Richard John Harrison.
                                                                        Christophe Steyaert, Avocats.
munity trade mark:
The Community trade          Word mark ‘HIWATT’ for certain             The applicant claims that the Court should:
mark concerned:              goods in Class 9.
                                                                        —     order the European Commission to pay the applicant
Proprietor of the right to   The applicant.                                   EUR 118 651 150;
the trade mark or sign
asserted by way of oppo-
sition in the opposition                                                —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
proceedings:
Trade mark or sign           German, French and Italian word            Pleas in law and main arguments
asserted by way of oppo-     marks ‘HIWATT’, registered in
sition in the opposition     respect of certain goods in Class
proceedings:                 9.                                         The Commission issued invitation to tender no. 96/31/IX/C1
                                                                        (hierarchical office furniture — OJ S 164 of 27 August 1996)
Decision of the Oppo-        Rejection of the opposition.               pursuant to which the applicant filed a tender which was
sition Division:                                                        rejected by the Commission.
 ---pagebreak--- 19.5.2001              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 150/31
The applicant requests compensation in respect of the loss                The Commission responded to that request with two consecu-
allegedly suffered as a result of the Commission having                   tive refusals grounded on the requirements of ‘commercial
committed a fault for the purposes of Article 288 of the EC               secrecy’ and the ‘authorship rule’.
Treaty in awarding the contract to Frezza Belgium SA which
caused loss to the applicant, who was the only person to
have submitted a tender which complied with the product                   In the circumstances, the applicant takes the view that the
specification.                                                            Commission’s refusal on two separate occasions and for two
                                                                          contradictory reasons is unjustified and prevents an operator,
                                                                          whose economic activity is closely dependent on the market
                                                                          in bananas being regulated and in which the Commission has
                                                                          above all powers of oversight, from checking whether such
                                                                          regulation is being properly managed.
                                                                          In support of its arguments, the applicant claims infringement
                                                                          of the Code of Conduct adopted by the Commission by
Action brought on 1 March 2001 by CO-FRUTTA soc.                          94/90/ECSC, EC, EURATOM and Declaration No 17 appended
coop. a.r.l. against Commission of the European Com-                      to the Final Act of the Maastricht Treaty, as well as abuse of
                            munities                                      powers.
                         (Case T-47/01)
                        (2001/C 150/61)
                   (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                          Action brought on 13 March 2001 by Carmine Salvatore
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                               Tralli against European Central Bank
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 1 March 2001 by CO-FRUTTA                                                    (Case T-56/01)
soc. coop. a.r.l., represented by Wilma Viscardini, Mariano
Paolin and Simonetta Donà, avvocati.
                                                                                (2001/C 150/62)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
—     annul the decision of the Commission — contained in
      the letter of 31 July 2000 of the Director General for
      Agriculture and letter of 5 December 2000 of the                    An action against the European Central Bank was brought
      Secretary General — whereby access was refused to the               before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
      documents referred to in the request submitted by Co-               on 13 March 2001 by Carmine Salvatore Tralli, of Nidderau,
      Frutta on 27 June 2000 and again on 1 September 2000;               Germany, represented by Norbert Pflüger, Regina Steiner and
                                                                          Silvia Mittländer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          1.    find that, in failing to respond in writing to the applicant
                                                                                in respect of his complaint, in accordance with a letter of
The applicant requested access to documents in the Com-                         5 February 2001, the defendant’s President infringed the
mission’s possession relating to the common organisation of                     last paragraph of Article 8.1.5 of the European Central
the market in bananas. That request was prompted by the fact                    Bank Staff Rules;
that it had come to the notice of the applicant that enormous
quantities of bananas had been imported into the Community                2.    in the event that some of the forms of order sought in
market under forged import licences or licences which had                       Case T-373/00 are refused:
been issued on the basis of false or erroneous reference
quantities. It therefore asked the Commission a copy of or, at
least, permission to consult on the premises, the lists of the                  —     annul the notice of dismissal issued by the defendant
operators registered in the Community or of the quantities                            of 29 November 2000;
they had respectively imported during the reference period
and therefore of the provisional reference quantity allocated to                —     find that the employment relationship between the
each of them, as well as the licences used and related                                parties continues to subsist unchanged beyond
documents.                                                                            31 December 2000;


title: Case C-185/00: Action brought on 17 May 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Finland

text:
C 247/14                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      26.8.2000
—     Order the Commission to pay the costs.                                Action brought on 17 May 2000 by the Commission
                                                                            of the European Communities against the Republic of
                                                                                Finland
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                       (Case C-185/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 247/17)
The Commission incorrectly applied Article 5(2)(c) of Regu-
lation (EEC) No 729/70 of the Council of 21 April 1970 on                   An action against the Republic of Finland was brought before
the financing of the common agricultural policy (2), as amended             the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 May
by Council Regulation (EC) No 1287/95 of 22 May 1995                        2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
amending Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 on the financing of the                 represented by Enrico Traversa, Legal Adviser, and Ilkka
common agricultural policy (3), read in conjunction with                    Koskinen, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address
Article 8(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1663/95 of                    for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
7 July 1995 laying down detailed rules for the application of               Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Council Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 regarding the procedure
for clearance of the accounts of the EAGGF Guarantee
Section (4).                                                                The Commission claims that the Court should:
                                                                            1.    Declare that the Republic of Finland has breached its
                                                                                obligations as a Member State by failing to fulfil its
The Commission did not observe the proper procedure                               obligations under Article 8(2) and (3) of Council Directive
established by those regulations for reimbursement of funding,                    92/81/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of
since it refused, contrary to the above provisions, to fund the                   the structures of excise duties on mineral oils (1) and
expenditure which was incurred earlier than 24 months before                      Article 5(1) of Council Directive 92/82/EEC of 19 Octo-
the relevant written notification from the Commission to                          ber 1992 on the approximation of the rates of excise
Finland concerning the results of the checks done. The                            duties on mineral oils (2), by maintaining in force the laws
Commission exceeded that time limit by the above-mentioned                        and regulations concerning the use of light fuel oil as
Commission Decision 2000/216/EC with respect to                                   motor fuel.
FIM 7 270 885,76 in the reimbursement of funding for the
1996 and 1997 financial years, in that Finland received the
written notice referred to in the above-mentioned provisions                      In particular, it is said that Finland has not implemented
only on 22 December 1998, but the reimbursement of funding                        the fiscal control referred to in Article 8 of Directive
relates, as regards the above-mentioned sum, to expenditure                       92/81/EEC with respect to the distribution and use of
which was incurred earlier than 24 months before receipt of                       light fuel oil. The possibility in Finland of lawfully using
that notification (that is, 16 October 1995 to 21 December                        as motor fuel, by paying tax (motor vehicle tax and the
1996). The documents sent by the Commission before the                            price of the fuel), light fuel oil taxable as heating oil is
letter received on 22 December 1998 were so defective that                        regarded as contrary to Article 5 of Directive 92/82/EEC;
Finland was not able effectively to defend its rights and
properly reply to the Commission’s views. In the telex sent on              2.    Order Finland to pay the costs.
20 May 1997, for example, there was no reference to Regu-
lation No 1663/95, and the Commission’s letter dated 17 Sep-
tember 1998, the Finnish text of which was received by
Finland on 24 September 1998, lacked the annex referred to                  Pleas in law and main arguments
in the letter.
                                                                            Article 99 EC (formerly Article 93 of the EC Treaty) requires
                                                                            inter alia the harmonisation of legislation concerning excise
The Commission also incorrectly stated in Decision                          duties and other indirect taxation to the extent that harmonis-
2000/216/EC that it did not concern expenditure incurred                    ation is necessary to ensure the establishment and the func-
earlier than 24 months before the written notification of the               tioning of the internal market. That provision of the Treaty is
results of the checks.                                                      the legal basis both of Council Directive 92/81/EEC of
                                                                            19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of
                                                                            excise duties on mineral oils and of Council Directive
                                                                            92/82/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the approximation of the
                                                                            rates of excise duties on mineral oils.
( 1) OJ 2000 L 67, p. 37.
( 2) OJ, English Special Edition 1970 (I), p. 218.
( 3) OJ 1995 L 125, p. 1.                                                   In point 5(e) and (f) of Part IX of Annex XV to the Act of
( 4) OJ 1995 L 158, p. 6.
                                                                            Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden, ‘List provided for
                                                                            in Article 151 of the Act of Accession’, Finland is authorised
                                                                            to derogate from certain provisions and obligations in those
                                                                            directives. Those provisions of the Act of Accession do not,
 ---pagebreak--- 26.8.2000              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 247/15
however, authorise Finland to derogate from the provisions of                  training’issued by the Consulate General and who sub-
the said directives beyond what is specified in those points of                sequently held a temporary residence authorisation
the annex in question.                                                         restricted to vocational training activity with a specific
                                                                               employer fulfil the requirements of the second or third
Finland amended its legislation on excise duties by enacting                   indent of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-
the new Valmisteverotuslaki (Law on excise duties,                             Turkey Association Council on the development of the
1469/29.12.1994), which was intended to transpose Council                      Association if, from 1 October 1992 to 5 May 1997, he
Directive 94/74/EEC (3) into national legislation. Fuel duty was               was in the training relationship in question and received
amended by the Laki nestemäisten polttoaineiden valmiste-                      for that a monthly training remuneration?
verosta (Law on excise duty on liquid fuels, 1472/29.12.1994).
That law partly transposed Directives 92/81/EEC and                       2.   Does a Turkish national who is the child by birth of
92/82/EEC into national legislation. Neither in this connection                former Turkish workers in the host country fulfil the
nor subsequently was the use in motor vehicles of light fuel                   requirements of the second paragraph of Article 7 of
oil, intended for heating expressly prohibited. With respect to                Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Association Council
that light fuel oil, no provisions or rules on fiscal control are              on the development of the Association if he was adopted
laid down either in legislation or administrative regulations.                 as an adult by German nationals with the effects of
Nor are there any provisions or rules on fiscal control with                   adoption of a minor and his kinship to his natural parents
respect to the distribution of light fuel oil intended for heating.            has thereby ceased to exist? It is sufficient in that respect
There is no control at all with respect to the distribution of                 that he was the child of Turkish workers at the time of
light fuel oil intended for heating, and the minor checks done                 his parents’ legal employment and at the start of his
alongside police road traffic control may not be regarded as                   vocational training?
comprehensive fiscal control with respect to use.
                                                                          3.   Does a Turkish national fulfil the requirements of the
                                                                               second paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of the
Light fuel oil is obtainable in Finland, especially in thinly                  EEC-Turkey Association Council on the development of
populated areas, from service stations, which can sell it without              the Association if, eight years after leaving the host
fiscal control to anyone. As in Finland no controls are carried                country together with his parents who at that time were
out at all in such cases and there are no sanctions on the                     leaving definitively, he re-entered the country (without
activity of retailers, Finland cannot disclaim its obligation to               his parents) for the purpose of vocational training?
transpose Directives 92/81/EEC and 92/82/EEC in its national
legislation in all respects. It must also be stressed that Finland        4.   Does a Turkish national fulfil the requirements of the
has not been granted any derogation from the fiscal control                    second paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of the
required in the said directives.                                               EEC-Turkey Association Council on the development of
                                                                               the Association if he did not take the last part of the final
(1) OJ L 316 of 31.10.1992, p. 12.                                             examination in the host country, but in his country of
(2) OJ L 316 of 31.10.1992, p. 19.                                             origin before the host country’s examining board which
(3) OJ L 365 of 31.12.1994, p. 46.                                             had travelled there?
                                                                          5.   Is it compatible with Article 6 or the second paragraph
                                                                               of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey
                                                                               Association Council that, in a case where deportation has
                                                                               taken place, residence authorisation must be refused, by
                                                                               virtue of the prohibitive effect of Paragraph 8(2) of the
                                                                               Ausländergesetz (Law on Aliens, AuslG), until a time-
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungs-                       limit has, upon application, been placed on the effects of
gericht Karlsruhe by order of that court of 22 March 2000                      the deportation?
in the case of Bülen Kurz né Yüce v Land Baden-
                          Württemberg
                         (Case C-188/00)
                         (2000/C 247/18)
                                                                          Action brought on 31 May 2000 by the Commission of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     the European Communities against the Italian Republic
European Communities by an order of the Verwaltungsgericht
(Administrative Court) Karlsruhe of 22 March 2000, which                                          (Case C-224/00)
was received at the Court Registry on 22 May 2000, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Bülen Kurz né Yüce v Land
Baden-Württemberg on the following questions:                                                     (2000/C 247/19)
1.    Does a Turkish national who, with the approval of the               An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
      competent authority for aliens, entered the country                 Court of Justice of the European Communities on 31 May
      with a visa ‘valid only for the purpose of vocational               2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,


title: Case T-23/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 February 2007 — CAS v Commission (Association Agreement between the EEC and the Republic of Turkey — Remission of import duty — Fruit juice concentrate from Turkey — Community Customs Code — Movement certificates — Special situation — Rights of the defence)

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/30

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 February 2007 — CAS v Commission
   (Case T-23/03) (1)

   (Association Agreement between the EEC and the Republic of Turkey - Remission of import duty - Fruit juice concentrate from Turkey - Community Customs Code - Movement certificates - Special situation - Rights of the defence)
   (2007/C 82/65)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: CAS SpA (Verona, Italy) (represented by: D. Ehle, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: X. Lewis, Agent, and M. Nuñez Müller, lawyer)
   Re:
   Application for annulment in part of the Commission's decision of 18 October 2002 (REC 10/01) concerning an application for remission of import duties
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 83, 5.4.2003.