title: Case F-112/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 1 August 2016 — Bouvret and Others v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Pensions — Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Transfer to the European Union pension scheme of the pension rights acquired under national pension schemes — Decision on the crediting of pensionable years applying the new general implementing provisions relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure — Action manifestly unfounded)

text:
               3.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 364/43

      Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 1 August 2016 — Bouvret and Others v Commission
      (Case F-112/12) (1)

      ((Civil service - Officials - Pensions - Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Transfer to the European Union pension scheme of the pension rights acquired under national pension schemes - Decision on the crediting of pensionable years applying the new general implementing provisions relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure - Action manifestly unfounded))
      (2016/C 364/53)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicants: Florence Bouvret (Brussels, Belgium), Beata Stepien (Brussels, Belgium) and Daniel Wille (Mouscron, Belgium) (represented initially by D. de Abreu Caldas, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, E. Marchal and S. Orlandi, lawyers, subsequently by D. de Abreu Caldas, J.-N. Louis and S. Orlandi, lawyers, next by J.-N. Louis and S. Orlandi, lawyers, and last by J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by D. Martin and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents, subsequently by J. Currall and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents, and last by G. Gattinara, acting as Agent)

         Re:

      Application for annulment of the decisions on the transfer of the applicants’ pension rights to the European Union pension scheme which apply the new general implementing provisions concerning Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The action is dismissed as manifestly unfounded.

                  2.

                  Each party shall bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 379 of 08/12/2012, p. 35.


title: Case C-404/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szegedi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 19 July 2016 — Lombard Ingatlan Lízing Zrt. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatóság

text:
               3.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 364/9

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szegedi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 19 July 2016 — Lombard Ingatlan Lízing Zrt. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatóság
      (Case C-404/16)
      (2016/C 364/04)
      Language of the case: Hungarian

         Referring court

      Szegedi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Lombard Ingatlan Lízing Zrt.

         Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatóság

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Is the concept of refusal in Article 90(1) of Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (‘the VAT Directive’) to be interpreted as including a situation in which, under a closed-end financial leasing agreement, the lessor under the lease (‘the lessor’) may no longer claim payment of the leasing instalment from the lessee under the lease (‘the lessee’) because the lessor has terminated the agreement owing to breach of contract by the lessee?

                  2.

                  If the answer is in the affirmative, may the lessor, in accordance with Article 90(1) of the VAT Directive, reduce the taxable amount, even if the national legislature, availing itself of the option provided in Article 90(2) of the VAT Directive, has not allowed reduction of the taxable amount in the event of total or partial non-payment?

         (1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: Case C-575/13: Order of the President of the Court of 4 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim — Germany) — Thomas Etzold, Sandra Etzold, Toni Lennard Etzold v Condor Flugdienst GmbH

text:
               16.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/25

         Order of the President of the Court of 4 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim — Germany) — Thomas Etzold, Sandra Etzold, Toni Lennard Etzold v Condor Flugdienst GmbH
   (Case C-575/13) (1)

   2014/C 184/43
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 15, 18.1.2014.


title: Case T-73/03: Action brought on 26 February 2003 by Bernard Zaoui, Lucien Zaoui and Déborah Stain, née Zaoui against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 124/24              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                           24.5.2003
Action brought on 27 February 2003 by Henkel KGaA                         Decision of the Board of       Mr. Brutsaert’s appeal allowed in
against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                      Appeal:                        part. Application to register may
          Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)                                                        proceed also in respect of the
                                                                                goods ‘cleaning, polishing, scour-
                                                                                ing and abrasive preparation’ in
                         (Case T-67/03)                                                                  Class 3. Mr. Brutsaert’s appeal
                                                                                dismissed for the remainder;
                                                                                Opponent’s appeal dismissed.
                        (2003/C 124/42)
                                                                          Pleas in law:                  —     misapplication of Arti-
                  (Language of the case: English)                                                              cle 43(2) and (3) of Regu-
                                                                                lation 40/94 (1). The appli-
                                                                                cant challenges the Board of
                                                                                Appeal’s findings in relation
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                                                 to the issue of using and thus
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before                                                     maintaining entitlement to
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                                                     the national mark ‘CIDE’.
27 February 2003 by Henkel KgaA, Düsseldorf, Germany,
represented by Dr C. Osterrieth, lawyer, with an address for                                             —     misapplication of Arti-
service in Luxembourg. Koen Brutsaert was also a party to the                                                  cle 8(1)(b) of Regulation 40/
proceedings before the Board of Appeal.                                                                        94. The applicant challenges
                                                                                the Board of Appeal’s find-
                                                                                ings regarding the issue of
                                                                                similarity of goods.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the
      OHIM of 17 December 2002 in the appeal proceedings                  (1 ) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
      No R 940/2001-1;                                                         Community trade mark (OJ 11, p. 1).
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for Com-            Koen Brutsaert
munity trade mark:
                                                                          Action brought on 26 February 2003 by Bernard Zaoui,
Community trade mark          Figurative mark ‘Professional               Lucien Zaoui and Déborah Stain, née Zaoui against the
sought:                       Hygiene CID lines’ for certain                       Commission of the European Communities
                              goods in Classes 1, 3 and 5 (appli-
                              cation No 506618)
                                                                                (Case T-73/03)
Proprietor of mark or         Henkel KGaA
sign cited in the oppo-
sition proceedings:                                                                                (2003/C 124/43)
Mark or sign cited in         National marks ‘CIDE’ (for certain
opposition:                   goods in classes 1 and 5) and ‘CID’                            (Language of the case: French)
                              (in respect of certain goods in
                              Classes 1 and 3.
Decision of the Oppo-         Opposition upheld for part of the
sition Division:              contested goods, namely ‘bleach-
                              ing preparations and other sub-             An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                              stances for laundry use; cleaning,          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                              polishing, scouring and abrasive            European Communities on 26 February 2003 by Bernard
                              preparation’ (Class 3). The appli-          Zaoui, residing in Combs-la-Ville (France), Lucien Zaoui,
                              cation for registration may pro-            residing in Netanya (Israel), and Déborah Stain, née Zaoui,
                              ceed for the remaining goods of             residing in Ramat Gan (Israel), represented by Jean Alex
                              the application.                            Buchinger, lawyer.
 ---pagebreak--- 24.5.2003              EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                             C 124/25
The applicants claim that the Court should:                              Action brought on 3 March 2003 by Intech EDM B.V.
                                                                           against the Commission of the European Communities
—     find the defendant liable for the harm suffered by the
      applicants as a result of the attack on 27 March 2002 on                                     (Case T-74/03)
      the Park Hotel in Netanya (Israel);
—     order the defendant, in respect of the harm suffered by                                     (2003/C 124/44)
      the applicants, to pay the following amounts:
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
      —     to Lucien Zaoui, EUR 1 million in compensation for
            non-material damage;
      —     to Bernard Zaoui, EUR 1,5 million, in compensation           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
            for non-material damage;                                     ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 3 March 2003 by Intech EDM B.V.,
      —     to Déborah Stain, née Zaoui:                                 Lomm (Netherlands), represented by M. Karl, Rechtsanwalt.
            —    EUR 1 million in respect of bodily injury;              The applicant claims that the Court should:
            —    EUR 2 millions in respect of non-material               —     annul the Commission’s decision of 17 December 2002
                 damage;                                                       (Case COMP/E-2/37.667 — Special Graphite);
            —    an amount to be settled in the course of                —     in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed by Article 3(h)
                 proceedings for material damage.                              of the decision;
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                              —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         The applicant distributes isostatically pressed special graphite,
The applicants are relatives of Mrs Zaoui, who died on                   but does not itself produce it. Its activity in the European
27 March 2002 when a Palestinian terrorist carried out an                special graphite market is based on a cooperation agreement
attack on a hotel in Israel. The applicants claim that the               between itself and Ibiden Co. Ltd., a Japanese producer
education in the Palestinian territories in the West Bank and in         of isostatic special graphite. The Commission accused the
the Gaza strip is the certain and direct cause of the attack             applicant, a former subsidiary of the latter and various
which cost Mrs Zaoui her life, since that education incites              producers of isostatic special graphite (including Ibiden) of
individuals to hatred and terrorism. They claim that the                 taking part in a continuing agreement and/or concerted
defendant participated financially in that form of education,            practice on the market for special graphite in the European
the content of which it was presumably aware of and on which             Community and the European Economic Area. According to
it could have an influence. According to the applicants, the             the Commission’s finding, the applicant participated from
defendant also infringed the provisions applicable to the                February 1994 to May 1997 at European and regional level.
financial support programmes (Articles 6 and 177(2) of the
EC Treaty), the principles of sound financial management, the
agreements entered into between the Communities and the
                                                                         The applicant argues that the Commission has wrongly
United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian
refugees (UNRWA), Article 3 of Regulation No 1488/96/EC                  classified it as an offender. In reality, at least for the period up
and Amendment No 177 to the 2002 EC General Budget. In                   to 26 September 1995, the applicant could only be classified
                                                                         as a helper of Ibiden. According to Article 15(2) of Regulation
that context, they claim that the liability of the Communities
has been incurred by virtue of the second paragraph of                   No 17, a helper cannot be punished with a fine. The applicant
                                                                         further maintains that the Commission ignored several mitigat-
Article 288 of the EC Treaty.
                                                                         ing circumstances, particularly the subsidiary role of the
                                                                         applicant, and the fact that it voluntarily ended its participation
                                                                         long before the other participants and long before the Com-
                                                                         mission first intervened.


title: Case C-79/03: Action brought on 21 February 2003 by Commission of the European Communities against Kingdom of Spain

text:
C 101/24               EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                             26.4.2003
       the case and made a manifest error of assessment. The             The Commission takes the view that there are alternative
       Court of First Instance thus infringed Articles 230, 232          methods for capturing thrushes with the aim of avoiding
       and 234 EC as well as the Statute and the Rules of                damage to crops, such as hunting with rifles or employing
       Procedure.                                                        auditory or visual deterrents using flare guns, vibrating tapes
                                                                         or a combination of such methods. In other Spanish regions
                                                                         (Andalusia, Castilla-La Mancha, etc) there are extensive areas
( 1) OJ C 44 of 22.2.2003.                                               of olive groves and vineyards where hunting with lime is not
                                                                         permitted and where hunting with rifles in autumn and winter
                                                                         is considered adequate protection.
                                                                         Finally, the derogation under Article 9(1)(c) of Directive 79/
                                                                         409/EEC cannot apply in view of the fact that the parany is a
                                                                         non-selective hunting method and the high number of speci-
                                                                         mens captured.
Action brought on 21 February 2003 by Commission of
    the European Communities against Kingdom of Spain
                                                                         (1 ) OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1.
                                                                         (2 ) According to Article 4(1) of Decree 135/2000, ‘the only species
                          (Case C-79/03)                                      whose capture is permitted are the following: song thrush (Turdus
                                                                              philomenus), fieldfare (Turdus pilares), redwing (Turdus iliacus)
                                                                              and mistle thrush (Turdus viscivorus)’.
                         (2003/C 101/39)
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 21 Febru-
ary 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana, of its Legal Service,            Action brought on 24 February 2003 (by fax on 21 Febru-
with an address for service in Luxembourg.                               ary 2003) by the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties against the Republic of Austria
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                           (Case C-81/03)
—      declare that, by tolerating the practice of hunting with                                      (2003/C 101/40)
       birdlime in the Autonomous Community of Valencia,
       governed by Decree 135/2000 of 12 September 2000 of
       the Government of Valencia laying down conditions and
       requirements for the granting of special permits for the
       hunting of thrush with birdlime in the Community of               An action against the Republic of Austria was brought
       Valencia, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its           before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
       obligations under Article 8(1) and Article 9(1) of Council        24 February 2003 (by fax on 21 February 2003) by the
       Directive 79/409/EEC ( 1) of 2 April 1979 on the conser-          Commission of the European Communities, represented by
       vation of wild birds.                                             Maria Patakia, Legal Adviser in the Commission’s legal service
                                                                         and Claudia Schmidt, a member of the Commission’s legal
                                                                         service, with an address for service at the office of Luis Escobar
—      order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.                      Guerrero, a member of the Commission’s legal service, Wagner
                                                                         Centre C 254, Luxembourg-Kirchberg.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          The Commission claims that the Court should:
                                                                         1.     declare that, by prohibiting, under Paragraph 7a of
The ‘parany’ is an arrangement intended for the capture of                      the Bundesgesetz über die Regelung der gehobenen
thrush ( 2), which requires the use of small twigs impregnated                  medizinisch-technischen Dienste (Federal Law on the
with birdlime. Hunting with birdlime is a non-selective method                  Regulation of Higher Medico-Technical Services; ‘MTD-
of capture, as referred to in Annex IV(a) to Directive 79/409/                  Gesetz’), the independent exercise in Austria of certain
EEC and, accordingly, prohibited under Article 8 thereof, since                 medico-technical professions (laboratory, radiological
it cannot be guaranteed that birds of the species listed in                     and orthoptic services), the Republic of Austria has failed
Annex I to Directive 79/409/EEC or other protected migratory                    to fulfil its obligations under Articles 43 and 49 EC;
or non-hunting species are not caught in the parany and
trapped in the lime.                                                     2.     order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.


title: Case C-34/04: Action brought on 29 January 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the Netherlands

text:
C 71/14               EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                        20.3.2004
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                  Action brought on 29 January 2004 by the Commission
the Court should declare that:                                          of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the
                                                                                Netherlands
—     by failing to comply with the obligation to verify the
      compliance of cost accounting systems by an independent
      competent body and to publish a statement of compliance                                     (Case C-34/04)
      for 1998 and 1999, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
      has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(5) of
      Directive 97/33/EC of the European Parliament and of                                        (2004/C 71/23)
      the Council of 30 June 1997 on interconnection in
      telecommunications with regard to ensuring universal
      service and interoperability through application of the
      principles of Open Network Provision (ONP) (1);
                                                                        An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought
—     by failing in practice to apply correctly the measures            before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
      adopted for the purpose of implementing Article 18(1)             on 29 January 2004 by the Commission of the European
      and (2) of Directive 98/10/EC as regards verification of          Communities, represented by T. van Rijn and C. Diderich,
      the compliance of the cost accounting system by the               acting as Agents.
      national regulatory authority or another competent body,
      independent of the telecommunications organisation and
      approved by the national regulatory authority, and as
      regards annual publication of a statement of compliance,          The applicant claims that the Court should:
      the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its
      obligations under Article 18 of Directive 98/10/EC of the
                                                                        —     declare that, by failing to withdraw the fishing licences
      European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February
                                                                              granted to the fishing vessels WIRON III and WIRON IV
      1998 on the application of open network provision
                                                                              following the definitive transfer of those vessels to
      (ONP) to voice telephony and on universal service for
                                                                              Argentina, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to
      telecommunications in a competitive environment (2).
                                                                              fulfil its obligations under Article 5 of Regulation (EC)
                                                                              No 3690/93 of 20 December 1993 establishing a Com-
                                                                              munity system laying down rules for the minimum
                                                                              information to be contained in fishing licences;
Pleas in law and main arguments:
                                                                        —     order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.
The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has not yet adopted all the
measures necessary in order to ensure the full transposition
and implementation of Article 7(5) of Directive 97/33 as
regards:                                                                Pleas in law and main arguments
—     verification of the compliance of the cost accounting
      system by the national regulatory authority or another            Under the Agreement on relations in the sea fisheries sector
      competent body;                                                   between the European Economic Community and the Argen-
                                                                        tine Republic (OJ 1993 L 318, p. 2), the fishing vessels WIRON
                                                                        III and WIRON IV, which flew the Netherlands flag and were
—     annual publication of a statement of compliance.                  registered in the Netherlands, were transferred to Argentina.
                                                                        The vessels were removed from the Netherlands register of
                                                                        fishing vessels, transferred to Argentina and registered there in
                                                                        the national shipping register. The Commission discovered
As regards Directive 98/10, verification of the compliance of           that the fishing licences granted to the vessels WIRON III and
the cost accounting system of the operator Entreprise des               WIRON IV had been used again for other vessels. Such conduct
Postes et Télécommunications (EPT) has not yet taken place.             is inconsistent with the obligation imposed on the Netherlands
In addition, no statement concerning compliance has been                under Article 5 of Regulation No 3690/93 to withdraw
published.                                                              the fishing licences of vessels which have been definitively
                                                                        withdrawn from fishing activities. From the Community’s
                                                                        point of view, the definitive transfer of a vessel to a non-
(1) OJ 1997 L 199, p. 32.                                               member country is equivalent to the definitive withdrawal of
(2) OJ 1998 L 101, p. 24.                                               that vessel from fishing activity.


title: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 January 2002 in Case C-447/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Salzburg): Holto Ltd (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Registration of a company branch established in a Member State in the commercial register of that State, the company having its seat in another Member State where it conducts no economic activities — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

text:
20.4.2002               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                                  C 97/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                             and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of
                                                                                Poland, of the other part, concluded and approved on behalf of
                         29 January 2002                                           the Community by Decision 93/743/Euratom, ECSC, EC of
                                                                                the Council and the Commission of 13 December 1993, which
in Case C-162/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                          has direct effect, precludes the application to Polish nationals of
the Bundesarbeitsgericht): Land Nordrhein-Westfalen v                              a national provision according to which positions for foreign-
                 Beata Pokrzeptowicz-Meyer (1)                                     language assistants may be filled by means of fixed-term
                                                                                contracts of employment, whereas, for other teaching staff
(External relations — Europe Agreement between the Com-                            performing special duties, recourse to such contracts must be
munities and Poland — Interpretation of the first indent of                        individually justified by an objective reason.
Article 37(1) — Prohibition of discrimination based on
nationality as regards conditions of employment or dismissal                 2.    The first indent of Article 37(1) of the Europe Agreement
for Polish workers legally employed in a Member State —                            applies, from the date of entry into force of that agreement, to
Fixed-term contract of employment of a foreign-language                            a fixed-term contract of employment which was concluded prior
assistant — Effect on such a contract of the entry into force                      to the date of its entry into force but which is due to expire after
                    of the Europe Agreement)                                       that date.
                          (2002/C 97/01)                                     (1) OJ C 211 of 22.7.2000.
                   (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                                                  ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
In Case C-162/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) for a preliminary                                             of 22 January 2002
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between                  in Case C-447/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
Land Nordrhein-Westfalen and Beata Pokrzeptowicz-Meyer,                                 the Landesgericht Salzburg): Holto Ltd (1)
on the interpretation of Article 37(1) of the Europe Agreement
establishing an association between the European Communi-                    (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Registration of a
ties and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic              company branch established in a Member State in the
of Poland, of the other part, concluded and approved on behalf               commercial register of that State, the company having its
of the Community by Decision 93/743/Euratom, ECSC, EC of                     seat in another Member State where it conducts no economic
the Council and the Commission of 13 December 1993                                    activities — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)
(OJ 1993 L 348, p. 1), the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez
Iglesias, President, P. Jann, F. Macken, N. Colneric and S. von                                           (2002/C 97/02)
Bahr (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward,
A. La Pergola (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet, J.N. Cunha Rodri-                                  (Language of the case: German)
gues and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, Registrar, has given a                                        in the European Court Reports)
judgment on 29 January 2002, in which it has ruled:
1.    The first indent of Article 37(1) of the Europe Agreement              In Case C-447/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
      establishing an association between the European Communities           by the Landesgericht Salzburg (Austria) for a preliminary
 ---pagebreak--- C 97/2                  EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                        20.4.2002
ruling concerning the application for registration in the                   Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de
Commercial Register made to that court by Holto Ltd. — on                   Commerce de Marseille by order of 22 January 2002 in
the interpretation of Articles 43 EC and 48 EC — the                        the case of Marseille Fret S.A. against Seatrano Shipping
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of                                             Company Limited
the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet
(Rapporteur) and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; S. Alber,
Advocate General; Registrar: R. Grass, has made an order on                                            (Case C-24/02)
22 January 2002 in which it has ordered:
The Court of Justice of the European Communities clearly lacks                                         (2002/C 97/04)
jurisdiction to answer the questions put by the Landesgericht Salzburg
in its order of 27 November 2000.
(1) OJ C 28 of 27.1.2001.                                                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                            European Communities by order of the Tribunal de Commerce
                                                                            de Marseille (Marseille Commercial Court) of 22 January 2002,
                                                                            received at the Court Registry on 31 January 2002, for a
                                                                            preliminary ruling in the case of Marseille Fret S.A. against
                                                                            Seatrano Shipping Company Limited on the following ques-
                                                                            tions:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour de                           1.    Does Title II of the Brussels Convention of 27 September
Cassation (Belgium) by judgement of 6 November 2001 in                            1968, as reproduced in Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of
the case of Office National de l’Emploi against Mohamed                           22 December 2000 (1), permit a court of a Member State
                                Alami                                             to restrain a citizen of another Contracting State from
                                                                                bringing proceedings before the courts of his home
                                                                                country, under either his national law or Community
                           (Case C-23/02)                                         law?
                           (2002/C 97/03)                                   2.    May an English court, by way of an anti-suit injunction,
                                                                                purport to restrain a person from having access to another
                                                                                Community court which nevertheless have jurisdiction
                                                                                under the Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968, as
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                            reproduced in Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 Decem-
European Communities by judgement of the Cour de Cassation                        ber 2000?
(National Employment Office) (Belgium) of 6 November 2001,
received at the Court Registry on 31 January 2002, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Office National de l’Emploi               3.    May an English court, by means of that procedure deprive
(National Employment Office) against Mohamed Alami on the                         other Community courts of the power to rule on matters
following question:                                                               falling within their own competence when that power
                                                                                appears to arise from the provisions of Chapter II of
                                                                                Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000?
Does the Cooperation Agreement between the European
Economic Community and the Kingdom of Morocco signed
in Rabat on 27 April 1976, concluded on behalf of the                       4.    Is an order compelling a Community national to with-
Community by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2211/78 of                               draw an independent action already commenced before a
26 September 1978 (1), preclude a Member State from taking                        French court, under threat of punitive sanctions such as
account only of work periods as an employee completed on                          those provided for by the English anti-suit injunction
its territory by workers of Moroccan nationality for the                          procedure, consistent with the fundamental principle of
purposes of determining whether they are entitled to benefit                      the right to access to a court, as protected by the Court
from a supplement for seniority increasing the basic amount                       of Justice of the European Communities?
of their unemployment benefit?
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2211/78 of 26 September 1978                (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on
    concerning the conclusion of the Cooperation Agreement between              jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in
    the European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Morocco                  civil and commercial matters (OJ L 12, 16.1.2001, p. 1).
    (OJ L 264, 27.9.1978, p. 1).


title: Appeal brought on 12 July 1995 by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment delivered on 2 May 1995 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Third Chamber extended composition) in Joined Cases T-163/94 between NTN Corporation and the Council of the European Union and T-165/94 between Koyo Seiko Co. Ltd and the Council of the European Union (Case C-245/95 P)

text:
?.. 9    95             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                              No C 229/ 17
Appeal brought on 12 July 1995 by the Commission of the                  Removal from the register of Joined Cases C-74/93 and
European Communities against the judgment delivered on                                                C-75/93 ( ] )
2 May 1995 by the Court of First Instance of the European                                            95/C 229/37 )
Communities (Third Chamber extended composition) in
Joined Cases T-163/94 between NTN Corporation and the
Council of the European Union and T-165/94 between                     By order of 29 June 1995 the President of the Fifth Chamber
Koyo Seiko Co. Ltd and the Council of the European                     of the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                Union                                  ordered the removal from the register of Joined Cases
                                                                       C-74/93 and C-75/93 : Commission of the European
                        ( Case C-245/95 P)                             Communities v. Council of the European Union, supported
                             95/C 229/35                               by Kingdom of Spain, French Republic, European
                                                                       Parliament, Kingdom of the Netherlands, United Kingdom
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 2 May 1995 by              of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Federal Republic
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                of Germany.
(Third Chamber extended composition ) in Joined Cases
T-l 63/94 between NTN Corporation and the Council of the               ( ] ) OJ No C 112 , 22 . 4 . 1993 .
European Union and T-165/94 between Koyo Seiko Co . Ltd
and the Council of the European Union, was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
12 July 1995 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Eric White and Nicholas
Khan, acting as agents, with an address for service in                         Removal from the register of Case C-442/93 (*)
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,                                                 95/C 229/38 )
Centre Wagner, Kirchberg.
                                                                       By order of 10 May 1995 the President of the Court of
The Appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                       Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
— set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance,               from the register of Case C-442/93 ( reference for a
                                                                       preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Central de lo Penal
— refer the case back to the Court of First Instance,                  de la Audiencia Nacional ( Madrid, Spain )): Criminal
                                                                       proceedings against Rafael Martin Calvo Martinicorena .
— order the Applicants to pay the costs.
                                                                       (M OJ No C 1 , 4 . 1 . 1994 .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
It is submitted that the Court of First Instance erred in law in
that it :
  ( i ) held that a regulation modifying existing anti-dumping                 Removal from the register of Case C-208/94 (*)
        duties following a review initiated pursuant to
                                                                                ( 95/C 229/39 )
        Articles 14 and 15 of the Basic Regulation must
        establish injury within the meaning of Article 4 ( 1 ) of
        the Basic Regulation;                                          By order of 19 May 1995 the President of the Court of
                                                                       Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
 or, in the alternative, it further erred in law in that it:            from the register of Case C-208/94 : Commission of the
                                                                        European Communities v. Hellenic Republic .
 ( ii ) held that the infringement of Article 7 ( 9 ) ( a ) of the
        Basic Regulation necessarily entailed the annulment of          f 1 ) OJ No C 254, 10 . 9 . 1994 .
        the contested Regulation .
         Removal from the register of Case C-367/92 H                          Removal from the register of Case C-2 70/94 (*)
                            ( 95/C 229/36 )                                                         ( 95/C 229/40 )
 By order of 30 June 1995 the President of the Court of                 By order of 18 May 1995 the President of the Court of
 Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
 from the register of Case C-367/92 : French Republic v.                from the register of Case C-270/94 : Commission of the
 Commission of the European Communities.                                European Communities v. Italian Republic .
  H OJ No C 288 , 5 . 11 . 1992 .                                        (») OJ No C 316 , 12 . 11 . 1994 .


title: Action brought on 22 February 1995 by Compañía Valenciana de Cementos Portland SA against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-52/95)

text:
13 . 5 . 95           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 119/17
9 . Breach of the principle of proportionality.                          7. A new objection, not contained in the Statement of
                                                                              Objections, was made;
(M OJ No L 343 , 30 . 12 . 1994, p . 1 .
                                                                         8 . Irregular consulting of the Advisory Committee.
                                                                     II. Errors in interpreting the evidence available and
                                                                         undervaluation of the evidence favourable to the
                                                                         applicant:
    Action brought on 22 February 1995 by Comparua
     Valenciana de Cementos Portland SA against the                      1 , as regards the so-called 'Cembureau Agreement',
          Commission of the European Communities                              the Decision failed to take account of the fact that
                        ( Case T-52/95 )                                      the applicant is not a member of 'Cembureau';
                          95/C 119/38
                                                                         2 , as regards the participation of the applicant in the
                                                                              'European     Export     Policy   Committee',      the
                (Language of tbe case: Spanish)                               Commission      failed  to   take  account    of the
                                                                              non-participation of the applicant as from 1986,
An action against the Commission of the European                              when it began to concentrate all its exports in the
Communities was brought before the Court of First                             USA; neither did it demonstrate the connection
Instance on 22 February 1995 by Compania Valenciana de                        between cooperation for exporting to non-member
Cementos Portland SA, represented by Santiago Martinez                        countries and the rule of respecting national
Lage and Jaime Pérez-Bustarnente Kôster, of the Madrid                        markets;
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand Rue,                                    3 , as regards the applicant's participation in the
                                                                              'White Cement Committee ', the Decision failed to
                                                                              take into account the fact that there is no evidence
The applicant claims that the Court should :                                  whatsoever that the meetings at which the
                                                                              applicant was present adopted or applied any
— declare in whole or in part Articles 1 to 11 of                             rule of respecting national markets and that
    Commission Decision 94/815/EC of 30 November 1994
                                                                              cooperation between the members of the
    to be void as far as the applicant is concerned,                          Committee did not give rise, at least in so far as the
                                                                              applicant is concerned, to any solidarity.
— in the alternative, alter Articles 9 and 10 of the
    aforementioned Decision so as to reduce the amount of
    the fine imposed on Compania Valenciana, and                    III. Misapplication of Article 85 of the EC Treaty to the
                                                                         facts in issue through the finding that, through
— order the Commission to pay the costs .                                cooperation over exports to non-member countries,
                                                                         the supply of Community production surpluses was
                                                                         hindered, without the effect on Community trade as a
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                         result of such cooperation being established.
The applicant relies upon the following grounds:
                                                                    IV. As regards the fine, the applicant argues that its amount
  I. Breach of essential procedural requirements during                  is excessive since the Decision failed to take into
      examination of the file before the Commission and                  account the mitigating circumstances in its favour
      once the Decision was adopted . Those defects, which               which would have justified a significantly reduced
      prevented the applicant from defending itself                      fine .
      adequately against the objections raised against it, are
      as follows :
      1 . Improper notification of the decision;
      2 . The objections raised were not sufficiently
           precise;                                                    Action brought on 22 February 1995 by The Rugby
                                                                        Group pic against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
      3 . Inadequate notification of the Statement of
           Objections and inadequate access to the file;                                   (Case T-53/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 119/39 )
     4. Absence of a real table of documents;
      5 . Breach of the fundamental right to the heard;                            (Language of the case: English)
      6 . Absence of a complete translation of the Statement       An action against the Commission of the European
           of Objections, the documents cited therein and the       Communities was brought before the Court of First
           minutes of the hearing;                                  Instance of the European Communities on 22 February by


title: Case T-571/14: Action brought on 30 July 2014  — Laverana v OHIM (BIO PROTEINREICHER PFLANZENKOMPLEX AUS EIGENER HERSTELLUNG)

text:
               13.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 361/14

         Action brought on 30 July 2014 — Laverana v OHIM (BIO PROTEINREICHER PFLANZENKOMPLEX AUS EIGENER HERSTELLUNG)
   (Case T-571/14)
   2014/C 361/18
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Laverana GmbH & Co. KG (Wennigsen, Germany) (represented by J. Wachinger, M. Zöbisch and D. Chatterjee, lawyers)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 May 2014 in case R 125/2014-4;

               —

               order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark which contains the word elements ‘BIO PROTEINREICHER PFLANZENKOMPLEX AUS EIGENER HERSTELLUNG’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 5 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 1 1 9 22  911

      Decision of the Examiner: Refused the application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law:

               —

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

               —

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

               —

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

               —

               Misuse of powers by a decision on the basis of competition policy considerations


title: Case C-236/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — European Commission v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Taxation — VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 306 to 310 — Special regime for travel agencies — Differences between language versions — National legislation providing for the application of the special regime to persons other than travellers — Concepts of ‘traveller’ and ‘client’ )

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/6

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — European Commission v Italian Republic
   (Case C-236/11) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Taxation - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 306 to 310 - Special regime for travel agencies - Differences between language versions - National legislation providing for the application of the special regime to persons other than travellers - Concepts of ‘traveller’ and ‘client’)
   2013/C 344/06
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: C. Soulay and D. Recchia, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and G. De Bellis, avvocato dello Stato)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, T. Müller and J. Očková, acting as Agents); Hellenic Republic (represented by: E.-M. Mamouna, acting as Agent); Kingdom of Spain (represented by: S. Centeno Huerta, acting as Agent); French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and J.-S. Pilczer, acting as Agents); Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Szpunar and B. Majczyna, acting as Agents); Republic of Finland (represented by: J. Heliskoski, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 306 to 310 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — National legislation under which the special regime for taxation of travel agents applies to transactions carried out by travel agents for recipients other than travellers

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs incurred by the Italian Republic;

               3.

               Orders the Czech Republic, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Republic of Poland and the Republic of Finland to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 238, 13.8.2011.


21.4.2001             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 118/27
       Removal from the register of Case C-56/00 (1)                         Removal from the register of Case C-270/00 (1)
                        (2001/C 118/64)                                                      (2001/C 118/67)
By order of 27 October 2000 the President of the Court of             By order of 9 November 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-56/00: Commission of the                  from the register of Case C-270/00: Commission of the
European Communities v Italian Republic.                              European Communities v Austria.
(1) OJ C 211 of 22.7.2000.                                            (1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-155/00 (1)
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-484/99 (1)
                        (2001/C 118/65)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/68)
By order of 27 October 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           By order of 10 November 2000 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-155/00: Commission of the                 Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
European Communities v Italy.                                         from the register of Case C-484/99: Commission of the
                                                                      European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
(1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 47 of 19.2.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-186/00 (1)
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-320/96 P (1)
                        (2001/C 118/66)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/69)
By order of 9 November 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           By order of 14 November 2000 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-186/00: [reference for a preliminary      Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil              from the register of Case C-320/96 P: European Broadcasting
Division)]: Boston Scientific Ltd and Others v Cordis Corpor-         Union v Métropole Té1évision SA and Others.
ation and Cordis (UK) Ltd.
(1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.                                            (1) OJ C 354 of 23.11.1996.


title: Case T-364/08: Action brought on 29 August 2008 — 2nine v OHIM — Pacific Sunwear of California (nollie)

text:
               25.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 272/47

         Action brought on 29 August 2008 — 2nine v OHIM — Pacific Sunwear of California (nollie)
   (Case T-364/08)
   (2008/C 272/92)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: 2nine Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Palmer, Solicitor)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc. (Anaheim, United States)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 16 June 2008 in case R 1591/2007-2;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs; and

               —

               Take any further action as the Court may deem appropriate.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘nollie’ for goods and services in classes 3, 9, 11, 14, 18, 20, 25 and 26 — application No 4 601 621

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

      Mark or sign cited: International trade mark registration No 839 740 of the word mark ‘NOLI’ for goods in classes 3, 18, 24 and 25; United Kingdom trade mark registration No 2 361 525 of the word mark ‘NOLI’ for goods in classes 3, 18, 24 and 25.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Allowed the opposition and rejected the application in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partial annulment of the contested decision

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal failed to find that there is a likelihood of confusion between the conflicting trade marks with respect to all the contested goods; infringement of Article 74(1) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal failed or neglected to take into account properly the facts, evidence and arguments submitted.


title: Case C-391/04: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 May 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece)) — Ipourgos Ikonomikon, Proistamenos DOI Amfissas v Charilaos Georgakis (Directive 89/592/EEC — Insider dealing — Meaning of inside information and taking advantage of inside information — Stock-market transactions agreed on in advance and carried out within a group of persons capable of being insider dealers — Artificial increase in the price of transferable securities disposed of)

text:
               23.6.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 140/2

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 May 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece)) — Ipourgos Ikonomikon, Proistamenos DOI Amfissas v Charilaos Georgakis
   (Case C-391/04) (1)

   (Directive 89/592/EEC - Insider dealing - Meaning of ‘inside information’ and ‘taking advantage of inside information’ - Stock-market transactions agreed on in advance and carried out within a group of persons capable of being insider dealers - Artificial increase in the price of transferable securities disposed of)
   (2007/C 140/02)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Referring court
   Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Council of State) (Greece)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ipourgos Ikonomikon (Greek Minister for Economic Affairs), Proistamenos DOI Amfissas (Tax authority of Amphissa)

      Defendant: Charilaos Georgakis
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Simvoulio tis Epikratias — Interpretation of Articles 1 to 4 of Council Directive 89/592/EEC of 13 November 1989 coordinating regulations on insider dealing (OJ 1989 L 334, p. 30) — Concept of possessing and making use of inside information
   Operative part of the judgment
   Articles 1 and 2 of Council Directive 89/592/EEC of 13 November 1989 coordinating regulations on insider dealing must be interpreted as meaning that, when the main shareholders and members of the board of directors of a company agree to effect between themselves stock-market transactions in the transferable securities of that company in order to support artificially the price of those securities, they are in possession of inside information of which they do not take advantage with full knowledge of the facts when they carry out those transactions.

      (1)  OJ C 273, 06.11.2004.


title: Case C-90/05: Action brought on 18 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               2.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/26

         Action brought on 18 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-90/05)
   (2005/C 82/52)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 18 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Dimitris Triantafyllou, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission of the European Communities
   Having put the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg on notice to submit its observations and having issued a reasoned opinion on 7 July 2004 and regard being had to the reply of the government of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, registered at the Secretariat General on 13 October 2004,
   Claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by not observing the six-month period for refunds of VAT to taxable persons established within the country, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(4) of Eighth Council Directive 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979, (1)

               2.

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, whilst having correctly transposed the directive into national law, is not in practice observing the six-month period provided for in Article 7(4) for the refund of VAT to taxable persons not established within the country. In fact refunds made by the Luxembourg authorities are systematically paid with considerable delays. Moreover, Luxembourg legislation does not provide for interest on late payment to offset damage suffered as a result of those delays.

      (1)  Eighth Council Directive 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes – Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable persons not established in the territory of the country.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 July 2001 in Case T-131/00: Robert Charles Schochaert v Council of the European Union (Officials — Refusal of promotion — Statement of reasons — Comparative examination of the merits of the candidates — Action for annulment)

text:
C 331/20                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        24.11.2001
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               sels, represented by J.-N. Louis, G.-F. Parmentier and V. Peere,
                                                                          avocats, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against
                           of 12 July 2001                                Commission of the European Communities (Agents: C. Berar-
                                                                          dis-Kayser and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart) — application for
in Case T-204/99: Olli Mattila v Council of the European                  annulment of the Commission’s decision of 29 January 1999
 Union and Commission of the European Communities (1)                     to reject the applicant’s application for the post mentioned in
                                                                          the notice of vacancy COM/173/98 and the decision of
                                                                          27 January 1999 to appoint Gérard Zahlen to that post — the
(Access to documents — Decisions 93/731/EC and                            Court of First Instance (Single Judge: J. Azizi); B. Pastor,
94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom — Exception relating to the
                                                                          Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
protection of the public interest in the field of international           on 20 July 2001, in which it:
                    relations — Partial access)
                          (2001/C 331/32)                                 1.    Annulled the Commission’s decision to appoint Mr Zahlen to
                                                                                the post mentioned in the notice of vacancy COM/173/98 and
                                                                                the decision to reject Mr Brumpter’s application for that post;
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                          2.    Ordered the defendant to pay the costs.
In Case T-204/99: Olli Mattila, residing in Hyvinkää, Finland,
represented by Z. Sundström and M. Kauppi, Lawyers, with an               (1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.
address for service in Luxembourg, against Council of the
European Union (Agents: J. Aussant and M. Bauer) and
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: U. Wölker
and X. Lewis) — application for annulment of the Com-
mission’s and the Council’s decisions of 5 and 12 July 1999
respectively refusing the applicant access to certain documents               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
— the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of
P. Lindh, President of the Chamber, R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas and
J.D. Cooke, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the                                       of 12 July 2001
Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 July 2001, in which it:
                                                                          in Case T-131/00: Robert Charles Schochaert v Council of
1.    Dismisses the action;                                                                     the European Union (1)
2.    Orders the applicant to bear his own costs together with those      (Officials — Refusal of promotion — Statement of reasons
      incurred by the Council and the Commission.                         — Comparative examination of the merits of the candidates
                                                                                — Action for annulment)
(1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999.
                                                                                (2001/C 331/34)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               In Case T-131/00: Robert Charles Schochaert, an official of
                                                                          the Council of the European Union, residing in Brussels,
                           of 20 July 2001                                represented by J. A. Martin, avocat, against Council of the
                                                                          European Union (Agents: F. Anton and A. Pilette) — appli-
in Case T-351/99: Christian Brumter v Commission of the                   cation for annulment of the Council’s decision not to promote
                   European Communities (1)                               the applicant to grade B1 in the course of the 1999 promotions
                                                                          procedure — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber),
(Officials — Notice of vacancy — Appointment — Obli-                      composed of P. Lindh, President of the Chamber, R. Garcı́a-
gation to provide a statement of reasons — Comparative                    Valdecasas and J.D. Cooke, Judges; D. Christensen, Adminis-
examination of the merits of the candidates — Discretion of               trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 July 2001,
the appointing authority — Staff report — Request for                     in which it:
                               transfer)
                                                                          1.    Annulled the Council’s decision not to promote the applicant to
                          (2001/C 331/33)                                       grade B1 in the course of the 1999 promotions procedure;
                    (Language of the case: French)                        2.    Ordered the Council to pay the costs.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 285 of 7.10.2000.
In Case T-351/99: Christian Brumter, an official of the
Commission of the European Communities, residing in Brus-


title: Case T-373/06: Order of the Court of First Instance of 8 September 2008 — Matthias Rath v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) — Grandel (Epican Forte) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community trade mark Epican Forte — Earlier Community word mark EPIGRAN — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Application manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               8.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 285/40

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 8 September 2008 — Matthias Rath v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) — Grandel (Epican Forte)
   (Case T-373/06) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community trade mark Epican Forte - Earlier Community word mark EPIGRAN - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Application manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
   (2008/C 285/74)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Matthias Rath (Cape Town, South Africa) (represented by: S. Ziegler, C. Kleiner and F. Dehn, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Dr. Grandel GmbH (Augsburg, Germany) (represented by: G. Hodapp, lawyer)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 October 2006 (Case R 1069/2005-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Dr. Grandel GmbH and Matthias Rath
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law;

               2.

               Matthias Rath shall bear his own costs and pay those of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)(OHIM) and Dr. Grandel GmbH.

      (1)  OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.


title: Case C-397/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the La Cour d'appel de Bruxelles by order of that Court of 6 November 2002 in the case of 1. Clinique la Ramee, a non-profit-making associationy, and 2. Winterthur Europe Assurance SA against 1. Jean-Pierre Riehl, and 2. the Council of the European Union

text:
C 7/14                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        11.1.2003
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Rechtbank van                 Are vehicles which are designed for off-highway use and
Eerste Aanleg (Antwerpen) by judgment of that Court of                  intended for the transport and dumping of materials, and, in
4 November 2002 in the case of NV Transport service                     particular, are equipped for that purpose with an intricate,
     against 1. The Belgian State, and 2. BVBA Bea Cars                 versatile and precise tipping function, excluded from the scope
                                                                        of the term ‘dumper’ contained in heading 8704 10 of the
                                                                        CCT?
                       (Case C-395/02)
                         (2003/C 7/24)
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the La Cour d’appel
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  de Bruxelles by order of that Court of 6 November 2002
European Communities by judgment of the Rechtbank van                   in the case of 1. Clinique la Ramee, a non-profit-making
Eerste Aanleg (Court of First Instance) of 4 November 2002,             associationy, and 2. Winterthur Europe Assurance SA
received at the Court Registry on 11 November 2002, for a               against 1. Jean-Pierre Riehl, and 2. the Council of the
preliminary ruling in the case of NV Transport service against                                      European Union
1. The Belgian State, and 2. BVBA Bea Cars on the following
question:
                                                                                (Case C-397/02)
                                                                                (2003/C 7/26)
Does the principle of the neutrality of value added tax preclude
a Member State from claiming additional VAT from a taxable
person which has issued an invoice, correctly or otherwise, in
accordance with the VAT exemption applicable to intra-
Community supplies (Article 39a of the BTW-Wetboek                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
(Belgian VAT Code)) where it is evident that the VAT has been           European Communities by order of the La Cour d’appel de
paid by the end user and transferred to the Member State by             Bruxelles (Court of Appeal, Brussels) of 6 November 2002,
the person who drew up the invoice issued to that end user?             received at the Court Registry on 11 November 2002, for a
                                                                        preliminary ruling in the case of 1. Clinique la Ramee, a
                                                                        non-profit-making associationy, and 2. Winterthur Europe
                                                                        Assurance SA against 1. Jean-Pierre Riehl, and 2. the Council
                                                                        of the European Union on the following question:
                                                                        Must Article 85a of the Staff Regulations of officials of the
                                                                        European Communities, as laid down by Articles 2 and 3 of
                                                                        Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 (1) of the Council
                                                                        of 29 February 1968 and by the regulations amending that
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Gerechtshof                   regulation, be interpreted as conferring on the Communities
(Douanekamer) te Amsterdam by judgment of that Court                    the right to claim from a third party liable for the death of an
of 6 November 2002 in the case of DFDS B.V. against                     official reimbursement in full of the survivor’s pension paid to
          Head of the Rotterdam Customs District                        the surviving spouse pursuant to Articles 79 and 79a of those
                                                                        Staff Regulations, although the legislation applicable to the
                                                                        right to receive payment of compensation for the damage
                                                                        provides that the right to a survivor’s pension is unconnected
                       (Case C-396/02)                                  with the obligation of the perpetrator of a wrongful act to
                                                                        compensate in full for the damage, and although the damage
                                                                        suffered by the surviving husband as a result of the loss of the
                         (2003/C 7/25)                                  deceased wife’s income is less than the amount of the survivor’s
                                                                        pension paid to him?
                                                                        (1 ) Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 of the Council of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       29 February 1968 laying down the Staff Regulations of Officials
European Communities by judgment of the Gerechtshof                          and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the
                                                                             European Communities and instituting special measures tempor-
(Douanekamer) te Amsterdam (Amsterdam Regional Court of
                                                                             arily applicable to officials of the Commission (English special
Appeal — Customs Chamber) of 6 November 2002, received                       edition: Series-I 68(I) P. 30).
at the Court Registry on 11 November 2002, for a preliminary
ruling in the case of DFDS B.V. against Head of the Rotterdam
Customs District on the following question:


title: Case T-486/09: Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — Poland v Commission (EAGGF — Guarantee Section — EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Rural development measures — Less favoured areas and agri-environment — Flat-rate financial correction — Expenditure incurred by Poland — Control reports — Effectiveness of controls — System of penalties — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               9.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 325/21

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — Poland v Commission
   (Case T-486/09) (1)

   (EAGGF - Guarantee Section - EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Rural development measures - Less favoured areas and agri-environment - Flat-rate financial correction - Expenditure incurred by Poland - Control reports - Effectiveness of controls - System of penalties - Obligation to state reasons)
   2013/C 325/35
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented: initially by M. Szpunar, subsequently by M. Szpunar and B. Majczyna, and lastly by B. Majczyna and S. Balcerak, Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Rossi and M. Owsiany-Hornung, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision 2009/721/EC of 24 September 2009 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2009 L 257, p. 28).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 51, 27.2.2010.


title: Case C-378/16 P: Appeal brought on 7 July 2016 by Inclusion Alliance for Europe GEIE against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 21 April 2016 in Case T-539/13, Inclusion Alliance for Europe v Commission

text:
               5.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/17

         Appeal brought on 7 July 2016 by Inclusion Alliance for Europe GEIE against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 21 April 2016 in Case T-539/13, Inclusion Alliance for Europe v Commission
   (Case C-378/16 P)
   (2016/C 326/29)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Inclusion Alliance for Europe GEIE (represented by: S. Famiani, avvocato)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the order under appeal;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By decision of 17 July 2013, the European Commission requested payment from Inclusion Alliance for Europe of a total amount of EUR 212 411,89 in respect of Projects No 224 482 (MARE), No 216 820 (SENIOR), and No 225 010 (ECRN). Inclusion Alliance for Europe brought an action seeking annulment of that decision before the General Court, which gave a decision by reasoned order pursuant to Article 126 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.
   Inclusion Alliance for Europe claims that the order under appeal should be set aside in its entirety, for the reasons outlined below.
   The order under appeal failed to take into account or to apply the general principles of EU law in the assessment of the action brought against the Commission’s decision.
   The General Court erroneously regarded the arguments put forward in the reply as pleas in law which had been submitted for the first time, whereas they are, on the contrary, clarifications of the pleas in law and arguments already set out in the original application, with the result that there is no infringement of Article 44(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court of 2 May 1991.
   Regarding the submissions made concerning the principles of EU law applicable to the audit procedure, the General Court provided an inadequate, or even no, statement of reasons, incorrectly continuing to bring the case back to the issue of interpretation/breach of contract rather than taking the infringement of the general principles of EU law into account.
   The order under appeal fails to take into account or to apply the general principles of EU law with regard to the claim of unjust enrichment and the claim for compensation brought against the European Commission.


title: Case C-177/00: Action brought on 11 May 2000 by the Italian Republic against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 211/8                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           22.7.2000
Action brought on 11 May 2000 by the Italian Republic                           According to the Commission, there was no entitlement
    against Commission of the European Communities                              to a refund in such cases inasmuch as the olive oil was not
                                                                                included in the list of products in Article 3(8) of Regulation
                                                                                No 3665/87 (2) laying down common detailed rules for
                          (Case C-177/00)                                       the application of the system of export refunds on
                                                                                agricultural products. The Italian authorities disagreed,
                                                                                stating that the mixed oil could not be considered a
                          (2000/C 211/13)                                       compound product within the meaning of Article 8.
                                                                           (c) O t h e r c o r r e c t i o n s — S a l e o f i n t e r v e n t i o n
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                       alcohol — Failure to lodge security
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 11 May 2000 by the Italian Republic,                             The Commission’s desire to apply a correction is altogether
represented by Umberto Leanza, assisted by Avvocato dello                       unlawful and unjustified and reliance may not be placed
Stato Danilo Del Gaizo, acting as Agents, with an address for                   on the refusal to reopen the file after the conciliation body
service in Luxembourg at the Italian Embassy, 5 Rue Marie-                      had delivered its opinion.
Adelaïde.
                                                                                On the other hand, given that failure to deal with the
                                                                                argument fully during the bilateral meeting between the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                     Commission and the Italian authorities during the pro-
                                                                                cedure for the clearance of the accounts could not prejudge
                                                                                a new examination of the case, the statement put forward
— Annul the decision of the Commission C(2000) No 488                           by the Community institution to the effect that it had
     final of 1 March 2000 (1) excluding from Community                         received insufficient information to justify changing the
     financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member                       proposed correction was nothing more than an excuse in
     States under the Guarantee Section of the European                         view of the fact that, at the time, the Commission was
     Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) in so                     already in possession of all the information from which it
     far as it has carried out financial corrections to the                     would have been able to discern the reasons for the failure
     detriment of Italy, as set forth below, by excluding certain               to lodge the security and if, despite all this, the correction
     amounts from being charged to the fund itself when                         was proposed, that was due only to a misinterpretation of
     determining the total Italian expenditure charged in respect               the facts and of the legal situation, for which the Com-
     of the 1997 financial year and the period from 1995 to                     mission can only blame itself.
     1998, and
                                                                           (1) OJ 2000 L 67, p. 37.
— Order the Commission to pay the costs.                                   (2) OJ 1987 L 351, p. 1.
Pleas in law and main arguments
(a) E x p o r t r e f u n d s — e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e            Action brought on 12 May 2000 by the Italian Republic
     physical monitoring of exports                                            against Commission of the European Communities
     The Italian Government challenges, first of all, the validity                                   (Case C-178/00)
     of the correction, inasmuch as the inspections carried out
     by Commission officials were carried out in blatant                                             (2000/C 211/14)
     infringement of the principles of audi alteram parte and
     the rights of the defence.                                            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                           Communities on 12 May 2000 by the Italian Republic,
     In the alternative, the correction in question is challenged          represented by Umberto Leanza, assisted by Avvocato dello
     also on the ground that the departments and operations                Stato Danilo Del Gaizo, acting as Agents, with an address for
     inspected were not a representative sample.                           service in Luxembourg at the Italian Embassy, 5 Rue Marie-
                                                                           Adelaïde.
(b) E x p o r t r e f u n d s — O l i v e o i l
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
     EAGGF officials found that export declarations had been               — Annul Commission Decision C(2000) No 486 final of
     accepted in respect of quantities of olive oil originating                 1 March 2000 (1) amending Decision 1999/187/EC (2)
     in the Community which had been mixed with non-                            relating to the clearance of the accounts presented by
     Community olive oil refined under inward processing                        the Member States in respect of the expenditure under
     arrangements.                                                              Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance


title: Case C-537/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 14 October 2013 — Birutė Šiba v Arūnas Devėnas

text:
               11.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/17

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 14 October 2013 — Birutė Šiba v Arūnas Devėnas
   (Case C-537/13)
   2014/C 9/27
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Referring court

   Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Birutė Šiba

      Defendant: Arūnas Devėnas

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is a natural person who receives legal services pursuant to agreements for legal services concluded with a lawyer (an advokatas) for a fee, those services being supplied in cases which are likely to be connected with the natural person’s personal interests (divorce, division of assets acquired in the marriage and so forth), to be regarded as a consumer within the meaning of EU consumer protection laws?

               2.

               Is a lawyer (an advokatas who is a member of a ‘[liberal] profession’) who draws up an agreement with a natural person for the supply of legal services in return for a fee, which obliges him to provide legal services so that the natural person may achieve aims unconnected with her occupation or profession, to be regarded as a trader for the purposes of EU consumer protection laws?

               3.

               Do agreements for the supply of legal services for a fee which a lawyer (an advokatas) draws up in the course of his professional activities as a representative of a liberal profession fall within the scope of Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts?

               4.

               If the third question should be answered in the affirmative, are general criteria to be applied in classifying such agreements as consumer contracts or should they be recognised as consumer contracts according to special criteria? If it is necessary to apply special criteria for the classification of such agreements as consumer contracts, what are those criteria?

      (1)  OJ L 95, p. 29.


title: Case T-122/08: Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 June 2008 — Cyprus v Commission

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/59

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 June 2008 — Cyprus v Commission
   (Case T-122/08) (1)

   (2008/C 223/111)

      Language of the case: Greek

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

      (1)  OJ C 142, 7.6.2008.