title: Action brought on 23 May 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany (Case C-198/97)

text:
12 . 7. 97                EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 212/21
           the last day of her employment, with the result             Action brought on 23 May 1997 by the Commission of
           that employees who took unpaid leave ( including            the European Communities against the Federal Republic
           unpaid maternity leave ) during the periods referred                                       of Germany
           to would usually have a lower final pensionable                                        ( Case C-198/97)
           salary than they would have had if they had not
           taken such unpaid leave;                                                                 ( 97/C 212/39 )
     (c ) a provision whereby entitlement to a voluntary               An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
           redundancy payment is calculated according to a             brought before the Court of Justice of the European
           formula which includes a factor representing                Communities on 23 May 1997 by the Commission of the
           service ( which is calculated as pensionable service        European Communities, represented by Claudia Schmidt,
           under the pension scheme plus any period of                 of its Legal Service, assisted by Alexander Bohlke,
           actual service before joining the scheme ), where           Rechtsanwalt, with an address for service in Luxembourg
           that service does not accrue during any period of           at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of the
           unpaid leave (which term includes a period of               Commission's Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
           unpaid maternity leave when the woman is no
           longer in receipt of contractual or statutory               The applicant claims that the Court should:
           maternity pay ) when the employee does not pay
           contributions into the employer's contributory              ( a ) declare the Federal Republic of Germany in breach of
           pension scheme;                                                   its obligations under Articles 4 ( 1 ) and 6 ( 1 ) of
                                                                             Council Directive 76/ 160/EEC of 8 December 1975
     ( d ) a practice whereby entitlement to a voluntary                     concerning the quality of bathing water ( OJ No L 31 ,
           redundancy payment is calculated according to a                   5 . 2 . 1976, p. 1 ) in that, in relation to the original
                                                                             Bundeslander:
           formula which includes a factor representing a
           week's pay, where the amount of a week's pay is                   — it failed to take the necessary measures to ensure
           based on final pensionable salary as mentioned in                      that, within 10 years following notification of the
           ( b) above, with the result that an employee who                       Directive on 10 December 1975 , the quality of
           took unpaid leave ( including unpaid maternity                         bathing water conformed to the limit values set in
           leave ) during the period of 12 months ending on                       accordance with Article 3 thereof,
           the last day of her employment would receive a
           lower redundancy payment than she would have                      — and failed to carry out sampling operations with
           had if she had not taken such unpaid leave ?                           the minimum frequency laid down in the Annex to
                                                                                the Directive .
2 . What difference, if any, would it make to the answer
                                                                       ( b ) order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the
     to question 1 , if the woman were entitled to continue                  costs .
     to accrue pensionable service during a period of
     unpaid maternity leave by paying:                                 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     ( a ) a member's contributions; or                                — Infringement of Article 4 ( 1 ) of the Directive:
     ( b ) a member's and the employer's contributions to                    The statistics provided by the Federal Republic of
           the pension scheme ?                                              Germany, as contained in the published annual reports
                                                                             to the Commission pursuant to Article 13 of the
3 . What difference, if any, does it make to the answer to                   Directive, show that in the Federal Republic of
     question 1 , or any part thereof, if a considerably                     Germany a large proportion of bathing water still does
     greater proportion of female employees than of male                     not comply with the mandatory limit values laid down
     employees have had their pay ( whether entitlement to                   by the Directive . It can be deduced from the report to
     a pension or a voluntary redundancy payment )                           the Commission on the 1995 bathing season that, of
     reduced because they have taken unpaid leave                            the 446 coastal bathing areas, 11,9% do not satisfy
     ( including unpaid maternity leave )?                                   the limits in the Directive . Taking into account the
                                                                             further consideration that 6,5 % of bathing areas on
                                                                             the German coasts have not been sufficiently
4 . Is it contrary to the principle of equal pay for equal                   monitored, these figures are significant. The situation
     work if a woman on maternity leave, having received                     regarding the 1 822 German inland bathing areas is
     the contractual and/or statutory maternity pay to                       even worse . Whilst only 10,3% fail to comply with
     which       she   is   entitled under   her    contract   of
                                                                             the limit values, 42,5 % of them have not been
     employment and/or national legislation, does not                        sufficiently monitored .
     receive any further contractual maternity pay in
     circumstances where an employee who is absent from                      It is irrelevant, even if true, that, if the proposal for
     work by reason of sickness, for the same period as the                  amendment by the Commission were to be accepted
     woman is absent from work on maternity leave to                         by the Council, and if, in particular, the 'total
     which she is entitled, would receive contractual sick                   coliform' microbiological parameter were to disappear
     pay ?                                                                   and be replaced by a mandatory limit value for
                                                                             Streptococcus faec., part of the infringements
                                                                             ascertained would become nugatory.
 ---pagebreak--- No C 212/22             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      12 . 7 . 97
     Even the instances expressly admitted by the Federal                 Adviser, and Dimitris Triantafillou, of its Legal Service,
     Republic of one-off infringements of the maximum                     with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
     limits would, in the event of the proposal for                       Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner
     amendment being accepted by the Council, still not                   Centre, Kirchberg.
     lose their significance so long as the Federal Republic
     continues on average to carry out only eight to 10                   The applicant claims that the Court should :
     sampling operations per bathing season.
— Infringement of Article 6 (1 ) of the Directive :                       1 . declare that, by not giving notification of the laws,
                                                                               regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
                                                                               comply with Council Directive 93/76/EEC of
     The report to the Commission for 1995 shows that                          13 September 1993 to limit carbon dioxide emissions
     6,5 % of bathing areas on German coasts and 42,5 %                        by improving energy efficiency ( Save ) ('), or by not
     of German internal bathing areas were not sufficiently                    having adopted the measures necessary to comply with
     monitored in 1995 .
                                                                               it, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its
                                                                               obligations under that Directive;
                                                                          2 . order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Royal Court of                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Jersey by order of that court dated 28 April 1997, in the
case of Emidio Marco Rios against His Excellency the                      Under Article 10 of Directive 93/76/EEC, the Member
                  Lieutenant Governor of Jersey                           States were to adopt the measures necessary to comply
                          ( Case C-l 99/97 )                              with its provisions by 31 December 1994 and to inform
                                                                          the Commission thereof.
                             ( 97/C 212/40 )
                                                                          The Commission notes that the Hellenic Republic has not
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    yet brought its legislation into line with the Directive ,
European Communities by an order of the Royal Court of                    thereby failing to fulfil its obligations under Article 189 of
Jersey dated 28 April 1997, which was received at the                     the EC Treaty and Article 10 of the Directive .
Court Registry on 23 May 1997, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of Emidio Marco Rios and His Excellency the
                                                                          (') OJ No L 237, 22 . 9 . 1993 , p . 28 .
Lieutenant Governor of Jersey on the following questions:
1 . On the premise that British citizens are not liable to
     immigration control in, or to be deported from, Jersey,
     does Article 4 of the third Protocol to the Act of
     Accession of the United Kingdom to the European
     Communities (') have the effect that nationals of                    Reference       for a preliminary ruling by the
     another Member State are equally not liable to be                    Arrondissementsrechtbank Amsterdam by judgment of
     deported from Jersey ?                                               that court of 22 May 1997 in the case of Fitzwilliam
                                                                          Executive Search Limited, trading under the name of
2 . If the answer to the first question is 'No', does                     Fitzwilliam Technical Services (FTS ) against Bestuur van
     Article 4 prohibit the competent authorities in Jersey               het Landelijk Instituut Sociale Verzekeringen, successor
      from deporting a national of another Member State                   in law of the Bestuur van de Nieuwe Algemene
      save where such deportation is justified on grounds of                                     Bedrij fsvereniging
     public policy, public security or public health ?                                             ( Case C-202/97 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 212/42 )
 (') Official Journal, English Special Edition, 27. 3 . 1972, p. 164 .
                                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice
                                                                          of the European Communities by judgment of the
                                                                          Arrondissementsrechtbank ( District Court) Amsterdam of
                                                                          22 May 1997, received at the Court Registry on 27 May
Action brought on 26 May 1997 by the Commission of                         1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Fitzwilliam
  the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic                  Executive Search Limited, trading under the name of
                           ( Case C-201 /97                               Fitzwilliam Technical Services ( FTS ) against Bestuur van
                                                                          het Landelijk Instituut Sociale Verzekeringen, successor in
                              ( 97/C 212/41 )                             law of the Bestuur van de Nieuwe Algemene
                                                                          Bedrijfsvereniging, on the following questions:
 An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought
 before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                   1 . ( a ) May the words 'undertaking to which he is
 on 26 May 1997 by the Commission of the European                                    normally attached' in Article 14 ( 1 ) ( a ) of EEC
 Communities, represented by Hendrik Van Lier, Legal                                 Regulation No 1408/71 be supplemented by other


title: Case T-344/06: Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2012 — Total v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Netherlands market in road pavement bitumen — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Imputability of the unlawful conduct — Fines — Gravity and duration of the infringement)

text:
               17.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/14

         Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2012 — Total v Commission
   (Case T-344/06) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Netherlands market in road pavement bitumen - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Imputability of the unlawful conduct - Fines - Gravity and duration of the infringement)
   2012/C 355/24
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Total SA (Courbevoie, France) (represented: initially by A. Lamothe, L. Godfroid and A. Gosset-Grainville, and subsequently by A. Lamothe, L. Godfroid and O. Prost, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet and F. Castillo de la Torre, Agents)

      Re:

   Application, principally, for annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 4090 final of 13 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.456 — Bitumen (Netherlands)), and, in the alternative, for reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant by that decision.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Total SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 20, 27.1.2007.


               24.12.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 330/11

         Removal from the register of Case C-389/04 (1)

   (2005/C 330/23)

      Language of the case: French

   By order of 5 October 2005, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-389/04: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic.

      (1)  OJ C 273, 6.11.2004.


title: Case T-317/14: Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2015 — Klement v OHIM — Bullerjan (Form of an oven) (Community trade mark — Revocation proceedings — Three-dimensional Community mark — Form of an oven — Genuine use of a mark — Article 15(1)(a) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Nature of use of the mark — Form differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character)

text:
               23.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 389/49

         Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2015 — Klement v OHIM — Bullerjan (Form of an oven)
   (Case T-317/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Revocation proceedings - Three-dimensional Community mark - Form of an oven - Genuine use of a mark - Article 15(1)(a) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Nature of use of the mark - Form differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character))
   (2015/C 389/53)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Toni Klement (Dippoldiswalde, Germany) (represented by: J. Weiser and A. Grohmann, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: initially D. Walicka, then A. Poch, D. Botis and A. Schifko, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Bullerjan GmbH (Isernhagen-Kirchhorst, Germany)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 February 2014 (Case R 1656/2013-1), relating to revocation proceedings between Mr Toni Klement and Bullerjan GmbH.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Toni Klement to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 261, 11.8.2014.


title: Case C-443/09: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 April 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Ordinario di Cosenza (Italy)) — CCIAA di Cosenza v Grillo Star Srl, in liquidation (Directive 2008/7/EC — Indirect taxes on the raising of capital — Articles 5(1)(c) and 6(1)(e) — Scope — Annual duty paid to local chambers of commerce, industry, crafts and agriculture)

text:
               9.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/2

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 April 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Ordinario di Cosenza (Italy)) — CCIAA di Cosenza v Grillo Star Srl, in liquidation
   (Case C-443/09) (1)

   (Directive 2008/7/EC - Indirect taxes on the raising of capital - Articles 5(1)(c) and 6(1)(e) - Scope - Annual duty paid to local chambers of commerce, industry, crafts and agriculture)
   2012/C 165/02
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Ordinario di Cosenza

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: CCIAA di Cosenza

      Defendant: Grillo Star Srl, in liquidation

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale Ordinario di Cosenza — Interpretation of Articles 5(1)(c) and 6(1)(e) of Council Directive 2008/7/EC of 12 February 2008 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital — Annual duty payable on account of registration in the register of companies maintained by the local chambers of commerce — Annual duty determined on a flat-rate basis — Concept of ‘duties in the form of fees or dues’

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 5(1)(c) of Council Directive 2008/7/EC of 12 February 2008 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital must be interpreted as not precluding a duty, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, payable annually by all undertakings on account of their registration in the register of undertakings, even if that registration has constituent effect for capital companies and even if the duty is also payable by those companies for the period during which they only carry on activities preparatory to operating a business.

      (1)  OJ C 51, 27.2.2010.


title: Joined Cases C-458/14 and C-67/15: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 July 2016 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia and the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Sardegna — Italy) — Promoimpresa srl (Case C 458/14) v Consorzio dei comuni della Sponda Bresciana del Lago di Garda e del Lago di Idro, Regione Lombardia and Mario Melis and Others (C 67/15) v Comune di Loiri Porto San Paolo, Provincia di Olbia Tempio (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public contracts and freedom of establishment — Article 49 TFEU — Directive 2006/123/EC — Article 12 — Concessions of State-owned maritime, lakeside and waterway property of an economic interest — Automatic extension — Lack of tender procedure)

text:
               12.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 335/6

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 July 2016 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia and the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Sardegna — Italy) — Promoimpresa srl (Case C 458/14) v Consorzio dei comuni della Sponda Bresciana del Lago di Garda e del Lago di Idro, Regione Lombardia and Mario Melis and Others (C 67/15) v Comune di Loiri Porto San Paolo, Provincia di Olbia Tempio
   (Joined Cases C-458/14 and C-67/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public contracts and freedom of establishment - Article 49 TFEU - Directive 2006/123/EC - Article 12 - Concessions of State-owned maritime, lakeside and waterway property of an economic interest - Automatic extension - Lack of tender procedure))
   (2016/C 335/06)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring courts

   Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia and the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Sardegna

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Promoimpresa srl (Case C 458/14) and Mario Melis and Others (C 67/15)

      Defendants: Consorzio dei comuni della Sponda Bresciana del Lago di Garda e del Lago di Idro, Regione Lombardia (C-458/14), Comune di Loiri Porto San Paolo, Provincia di Olbia Tempio (C-67/15)

      Interveners: Alessandro Piredda and Others

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 12(1) and (2) of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market must be interpreted as precluding a national measure, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which permits the automatic extension of existing authorisations of State-owned maritime and lakeside property for tourist and leisure-oriented business activities, without any selection procedure for potential candidates.

               2.

               Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which permits the automatic extension of existing concessions of State-owned property for tourist and leisure-oriented business activities, in so far as those concessions are of certain cross-border interest.

      (1)  OJ C 448, 15.12.2014

      OJ C 146, 4.5.2015.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova, Sezione Prima Civile, by order of that court of 3 March 1995 in the case of Intercod Srl v. Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato (Case C-81/95)

text:
13 . 5 . 95             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 119/9
4 . In the event that question 3 is answered in the                    Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der
     affirmative, does that obligation have direct effect, that        Nederlanden by judgment of that court of 15 March 1995
     is to say, can it be invoked by an individual before a            in the case of Harnas & Helm v. Staatssecretaris van
     national court and must it be applied by the national                                          Financiën
     court even though it was not in fact invoked in the                                       ( Case C-80/95 )
     matter pending before that court ?
                                                                                ( 95/C 119/19
(!) OJ No L 175 , 5 . 7. 1985 , p . 40 .
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by a judgment of the Hoge Raad
                                                                       der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands ) of
                                                                       15 March 1995, which was received at the Couft Regfefty
                                                                       on 17 March 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der              Harnas & Helm v. Staatssecretaris van Financiën, on the
Nederlanden by judgment of that court of 10 March 1995 in              following questions :
the case of 1 . B. A. J. Hendrikman and 2. M. Feyen v.
                Magenta Druck & Verlag GmbH                            1 . Are the mere acquisition of ownership in and the
                           (Case C-78/95 )                                 holding of bonds — claims embodied in marketable
                            ( 95/C 119/18 )                                securities —, activities which are not subservient to any
                                                                           other business activity, and the receipt of income
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     therefrom to be regarded as economic activities within
European Communities by a judgment of the Hoge Raad                        the meaning of Article 4 ( 2 ) of the Sixth Directive ?
der Nederlanden ( Supreme Court of the Netherlands ) of
10 March 1 995 , which was received at the Court Registry              2 . If that question has to be answered in the affirmative,
on 16 March 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of                 should those activities be regarded as transactions,
1 . B. A. J. Hendrikman and 2. M. Feyen v. Magenta Druck                   within the meaning of Article 13B ( d ) ( 1 ) or ( 5 ) of the
& Verlag GmbH, on the following questions:                                 Sixth Directive, which, in so far as they relate to bonds
                                                                           issued by a body established outside the Community,
1 . Must Article 29 of the Brussels              Convention be             confer an entitlement to deduct the input tax imposed
     interpreted as meaning that the court "of the State in                on the possession and management of the bonds as a
     which recognition is sought must refrain from making                  result of Article 17 ( 3 ) (c ) of the Sixth Directive ?
     any inquiry into the question as to whether the
     defendant to the proceedings conducted in the State in            3 . If question 2 has to be answered in the affirmative, in the
     which judgment was given was validly represented, even                event that a taxable person carrying out the activities
     if the court of the State in which judgment was given                 referred to in the foregoing questions is also the holder
     made no ruling in that regard ?                                       of shares, which, according to that which the Court of
                                                                           Justice held in particular in its judgment of 22 June 1994
2 . ( a ) Must Article 27 ( 1 ) of the Brussels Convention be              in Case C-333/91 Satam SA, fall outside the scope of
           interpreted as precluding recognition of a judgment             value added tax, can the input tax charged to that
           given in another Contracting State where the                    taxable person be deducted in full or is the input tax
           defendant to the relevant proceedings was not                   relating to the possession of the shares debarred from
           validly represented and had no knowledge of the                 being deducted ?
           proceedings, even if he later had cognizance of the
           judgment which was given and availed himself in             4 . If question 3 must be answered in the latter sense,
           that regard of none of the legal remedies afforded              according to what yardstick must be the amount
           by the procedural law of the State in which                     disqualified from deduction be calculated ?
           judgment was given ?
     ( b ) Is it relevant in this connection that the time within
           which the legal remedy must be applied is one
           month from the day on which the defendant has
           cognizance of the judgment which has been                   Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di
           given ?                                                     Genova, Sezione Prima Civile, by order of that court of
                                                                       3 March 1995 in the case of Intercod Sri v. Amministrazione
3 . Must Article 27 (2 ) of the Brussels Convention be                                    delle Finanze dello Stato
     interpreted as meaning that that provision is also                                        ( Case C-81/95 )
     applicable in a case in which, although the defendant
     was not declared to be in default of appearance , the                                       ( 95/C 119/20 )
     document instituting the proceedings or an equivalent
     document was not duly served on or notified to him in             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     sufficient time and the defendant was not lawfully                European Communities by order of the Tribunale di
     represented in the proceedings ?                                  Genova , Sezione Prima Civile (District Court, Genoa, First
                                                                       Civil Section ), of 3 March 1995 , which was received at the
                                                                       Court Registry on 17 March 1995 , for a preliminary ruling
 ---pagebreak--- No C 119/ 10             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  13 . 5 . 95
on the same questions as in Case C-47/95 , C-48/95 ,                    from the register of Case C-455/93 : Italian Republic v.
C-49/95 , C-50/95 and C-60/95 ( 1 ).                                    Commission of the European Communities.
i 1 ) See page 5 of this Official Journal .                             0 ) OJ No C 18 , 21 . 1 . 1994 .
   Removal from the register of Joined Cases C-183/89 H
                          and C-138/90 ( 2 )                                   Removal from the register of Case C- 1 1 7/94 ( x )
                            ( 95/C 119/21                                                           ( 95/C 119/23 )
fiy order of 21 February 1995 the President of the Court of             By order of 17 February 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 Joined Cases C-183/89 and C-138/90 :               from the register of Case C- 1 17/94 (reference for a
1 . Gesamtverband des Deutschen Steinkohlenbergbaus,                    preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Diisseldorf):
2 . Eschweiler Bergwerks-Verein AG, 3 . Gewerkschaft                    Ratiopharm GmbH & Co . v. Mundipharma GmbH.
Auguste Victoria, 4 . Gewerkschaft Sophia-Jacoba, 5 .
Preussag AG Kohle, 6 . Ruhrkohle AG, 7. Saarbergwerke
AG v. Commission of the European Communities and                        (!) OJ No C 174, 25 . 6 . 1994 .
Federal Republic of Germany v. Commission of the
European Communities.
f 1 ) OJ No C 192 , 29 . 7 . 1989 .
( 2 ) OJ No C 146, 15 . 6 . 1990 .
                                                                               Removal from the register of Case C-183/94 (*)
                                                                                ( 95/C 119/24 )
                                                                        By order of 7 February 1995 the President of the Court of
        Removal from the register of Case C-455/93 ( )                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                            ( 95/C 119/22 )                             from the register of Case C-l 83/94: Commission of the
                                                                        European Communities v. Italian Republic .
By order of 17 February 1 995 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                 f 1 ) OJ No C 233 , 20 . 8 . 1994 .
                                                       COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                Parliament (Agents: M. Peter and J. Pantalis) — application
                         of 22 March 1995                               for the annulment of the decision of the European
                                                                        Parliament of 29 September 1992 refusing the payment of
        in Case T-43/93 : Sylviane Dachy and Others v.                  the applicant of the expatriation allowance from
                     European Parliament (*)                            1 September 1992 — the Court of First Instance ( Second
(Officials   — Expatriation allowance — Services performed              Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, and
                for an international organization)                      D. P. M. Barrington and A. Saggio, Judges; H. Jung,
                            ( 95/C 119/25                               Registrar, has given a judgment on 22 March 1995 , in which
                                                                        it:
                  (Language of the case: French)
                                                                        1 , dismisses the action;
In Case T-43/93 : Sylviane Dachy, Loris and Fabio Lo                    2, orders the parties to pay their own costs.
Giudice, the next-of-kin of Mario Lo Giudice, formerly an
official of the European Parliament, residing at Namur
( Belgium ), represented by Manuel Campolini, of the                    f 1 ) OJ No C 210, 4 . 8 . 1993 .
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the Chambers of Charles Duro, 6 Rue Heine, v. European


title: Case C-402/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Dioikitiko Efeteio Athinon — Greece) — Viamar — Elliniki Aftokiniton kai Genikon Epicheiriseon AE v Elliniko Dimosio (References for a preliminary ruling — Free movement of goods — Tax provisions — Internal taxation — Customs duties of a fiscal nature — Charges having equivalent effect — Formalities connected with the crossing of frontiers — Article 30 TFEU — Article 110 TFEU — Directive 92/12/EEC — Article 3(3) — Directive 2008/118/EC — Article 1(3) — Not implemented in domestic law — Direct effect — Levying of a tax on motor vehicles at the time of their import into the territory of a Member State — Tax linked to registration and potential putting into circulation of the vehicle — Refusal to refund the tax where the vehicle is not registered)

text:
               22.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 68/15

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Dioikitiko Efeteio Athinon — Greece) — Viamar — Elliniki Aftokiniton kai Genikon Epicheiriseon AE v Elliniko Dimosio
   (Case C-402/14) (1)

   ((References for a preliminary ruling - Free movement of goods - Tax provisions - Internal taxation - Customs duties of a fiscal nature - Charges having equivalent effect - Formalities connected with the crossing of frontiers - Article 30 TFEU - Article 110 TFEU - Directive 92/12/EEC - Article 3(3) - Directive 2008/118/EC - Article 1(3) - Not implemented in domestic law - Direct effect - Levying of a tax on motor vehicles at the time of their import into the territory of a Member State - Tax linked to registration and potential putting into circulation of the vehicle - Refusal to refund the tax where the vehicle is not registered))
   (2016/C 068/18)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Referring court

   Dioikitiko Efeteio Athinon

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Viamar — Elliniki Aftokiniton kai Genikon Epicheiriseon AE

      Defendant: Elliniko Dimosio

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 1(3) of Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC must be interpreted as fulfilling the conditions for producing direct effect allowing individuals to rely on it before a national court in a dispute between them and a Member State.

               2.

               Article 30 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a practice by a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, by which the registration tax collected upon import of motor vehicles originating from other Member States is not refunded when the vehicles concerned were never registered in that Member State and were re-exported to another Member State.

      (1)  OJ C 380, 27.10.2014.


title: Case F-83/10: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 5 June 2012 — Giannakouris v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Remuneration — Family allowances — Education allowance — Conditions of grant — Deduction of an allowance of like nature paid from other sources)

text:
               21.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/30

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 5 June 2012 — Giannakouris v Commission
   (Case F-83/10) (1)

   (Civil service - Officials - Remuneration - Family allowances - Education allowance - Conditions of grant - Deduction of an allowance of like nature paid from other sources)
   2012/C 217/64
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Konstantinos Giannakouris (Roodt-sur-Syre, Luxembourg) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Martin, Agent, and E. Bourtzalas and E. Antypas, lawyers)

      Re:

   Annulment of the decision of the Commission whereby the education allowance granted to the applicant was reduced on the basis that his daughter receives financial assistance from a Member State by way of a grant and a loan.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Giannakouris to pay the European Commission’s costs.

      (1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2011, p. 38.


title: Case C-140/11: Order of the President of the First Chamber of the Court of 29 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Procuratore generale della Repubblica presso la Corte suprema di cassazione v Demba Ngagne

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/29

         Order of the President of the First Chamber of the Court of 29 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Procuratore generale della Repubblica presso la Corte suprema di cassazione v Demba Ngagne
   (Case C-140/11) (1)

   2011/C 252/69
   Language of the case: Italian
   The President of the First Chamber of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 152, 21.5.2011.


title: Case C-152/10: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret (Denmark)) — Unomedical A/S v Skatteministeriet (Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Plastic dialysis drainage bags intended exclusively for use with dialysers (artificial kidneys) — Plastic urine drainage bags intended exclusively for use with catheters — Headings 9018 and 3926 — ‘Parts’ and ‘accessories’ — Other articles of plastics)

text:
               6.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 232/8

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret (Denmark)) — Unomedical A/S v Skatteministeriet
   (Case C-152/10) (1)

   (Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Plastic dialysis drainage bags intended exclusively for use with dialysers (artificial kidneys) - Plastic urine drainage bags intended exclusively for use with catheters - Headings 9018 and 3926 - ‘Parts’ and ‘accessories’ - Other articles of plastics)
   2011/C 232/13
   Language of the case: Danish

      Referring court

   Højesteret

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Unomedical A/S

      Defendant: Skatteministeriet

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Højesteret — Interpretation of Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1) Plastic drainage bags intended exclusively for use with a dialyser — Classification under subheading 9018 90 30 or subheading 3926 90 99 — Plastic drainage bags intended exclusively for use with a catheter — Classification under subheading 9018 39 00 or subheading 3926 90 99 — Definition of ‘Part and/or accessory’

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Combined Nomenclature, set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, in the versions applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings, must be interpreted as meaning that a dialysis drainage bag, manufactured from plastic, which is specially designed for, and can be used only with, a dialyser (artificial kidney), had, between May 2001 and December 2003, to be classified under subheading 3926 90 99 of the Combined Nomenclature as ‘plastics and articles thereof’ and that a urine drainage bag, manufactured from plastic, which is specially designed for, and therefore can be used only in connection with, a catheter had, during the same period, to be classified under subheading 3926 90 99 of the Combined Nomenclature as ‘plastics and articles thereof’.

      (1)  OJ C 148, 5.6.2010.


title: Case F-130/05: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 13 December 2007 — Soares v Commission (Staff case — Officials — Reconstitution of career — Absence of staff reports — Comparative examination of merits — Request under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations — Admissibility of the action — New and substantial fact)

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/53

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 13 December 2007 — Soares v Commission
   (Case F-130/05) (1)

   (Staff case - Officials - Reconstitution of career - Absence of staff reports - Comparative examination of merits - Request under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations - Admissibility of the action - New and substantial fact)
   (2008/C 22/99)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Carlos Alberto Soares (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and K. Herrmann)
   Re:
   Annulment of the decision of the appointing authority of 19 September 2005 rejecting the applicant's claim for a favourable reconstitution of his career.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 60 of 11.3.2006, p. 57.


title: Case T-158/15: Action brought on 1 April 2015 — Abertis Infraestructuras and Abertis Telecom Satélites v Commission

text:
               1.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/21

         Action brought on 1 April 2015 — Abertis Infraestructuras and Abertis Telecom Satélites v Commission
   (Case T-158/15)
   (2015/C 178/21)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Abertis Infraestructuras, SA (Barcelona, Spain) and Abertis Telecom Satélites, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Buendía Sierra, M. Maragall de Gispert, M. Santa María Fernández, J. Panero Rivas, and A. Balcells Cartagena, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the General Court should:

               —

               admit and uphold the grounds for annulment set out in this application;

               —

               annul Article 1 of the contested decision in so far as it declares that the new administrative interpretation of Article 12 TRLIS adopted by the Spanish administration must be regarded as State aid which is incompatible with the internal market;

               —

               annul Article 4.1 of the contested decision in so far as it requires the Kingdom of Spain to put an end to the alleged aid scheme as described in Article 1;

               —

               annul parts 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Article 4 of the contested decision in so far as they require the Kingdom of Spain to recover the amounts considered by the Commission to be State aid;

               —

               in the alternative, limit the scope of the recovery obligation imposed on the Kingdom of Spain in Article 4.2 of the contested decision in the same terms as in the First and Second Decisions; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-826/14 Spain v Commission and T-12/15 Banco Santander and Santusa v Commission.
   The applicants claim, in particular, that the Commission erred in law in the legal classification of the measure as State aid, in the identification of the beneficiary of the measure and in the characterisation of the administrative interpretation as State aid distinct from that examined in the Commission’s decisions, and that it breached the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations, of estoppel and of legal certainty.


title: Case C-190/07: Order of the President of the Court of 20 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/39

         Order of the President of the Court of 20 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-190/07) (1)

   (2008/C 51/67)

      Language of the case: Italian

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

      (1)  OJ C 129, 9.6.2007.


title: Case C-156/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München (Germany) lodged on 17 March 2016 — Tigers GmbH v Hauptzollamt Landshut

text:
               13.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/29

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München (Germany) lodged on 17 March 2016 — Tigers GmbH v Hauptzollamt Landshut
      (Case C-156/16)
      (2016/C 211/37)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Finanzgericht München

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Tigers GmbH

         Defendant: Hauptzollamt Landshut

         Questions referred

                  I.

                  Does Article 1(3) of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 412/2013 (1) of 13 May 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware originating in the People’s Republic of China allow a valid commercial invoice presented for the purposes of the initial fixing of a definitive anti-dumping duty to be submitted retrospectively where all the other conditions necessary for obtaining an individual anti-dumping duty rate are satisfied?

                  II.

                  In the event that the first question is answered in the negative:
                  Does Article 78 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (2) of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2700/2000 (3) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2000, preclude the customs authority, in the course of a revision procedure, from refusing to refund an anti-dumping duty on the ground that the declarant did not present a valid commercial invoice until after the customs declaration had been made?

         (1)  OJ 2013 L 131, p. 1.

         (2)  OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.

         (3)  Regulation (EC) No 2700/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2000 amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 2000 L 311, p. 17).


title: Case C-207/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia provincial de Tarragona, Sección cuarta (Spain) lodged on 14 April 2016 — Ministerio Fiscal

text:
               11.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 251/7

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia provincial de Tarragona, Sección cuarta (Spain) lodged on 14 April 2016 — Ministerio Fiscal
   (Case C-207/16)
   (2016/C 251/09)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Audiencia provincial de Tarragona, Sección cuarta

      Party to the main proceedings

   Ministerio Fiscal

      Questions referred

               1.

               Can the sufficient seriousness of offences, as a criterion which justifies interference with the fundamental rights recognised by Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter, (1) be determined taking into account only the sentence which may be imposed in respect of the offence investigated, or is it also necessary to identify in the criminal conduct particular levels of harm to individual and/or collective legally-protected interests?

               2.

               If it were in accordance with the constitutional principles of the European Union, used by the Court of Justice in its judgment of 8 April 2014 [Joined Cases C-293/12 (Digital Rights Ireland) and C-594/12 (Seitlinger and Others)] as standards for the strict review of the Directive, (2) to determine the seriousness of the offence solely on the basis of the sentence which may be imposed, what should the minimum threshold be? Would it be compatible with a general provision setting a minimum of three years’ imprisonment?

      (1)  Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (OJ C 326, p. 391).

      (2)  Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC (OJ 2006 L 105, p. 54).


title: Action brought on 15 December 1997 by Patrizio Severino against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-314/97)

text:
C 72/16               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     7.3.98
                                                   COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Action brought on 15 December 1997 by Patrizio Severino             Action brought on 11 December 1997 by SUTES SpA
   against the Commission of the European Communities               and Others against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
                       (Case T-314/97)
                                                                                (Case T-315/97)
                         (98/C 72/37)
                                                                                (98/C 72/38)
                (Language of the case: Italian)                                     (Language of the case: Italian)
An action against the Commission of the European                    An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                   Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 15 December                 Instance of the European Communities on 11 December
1997 by Patrizio Severino, represented by Michele                   1997 by SUTES SpA, Union Beton, Triveneta
Tamburini, Giuseppe E. Cusumano and Franco Colussi, of              Autotrasporti, Roiatti Domenico, Autotrasporti Chiarcossi
the Milan Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg            Srl, Pontra Srl, Ditta Gualtieri Gianfranco, Udinese
at the Chambers of the latter at 36 Rue de Wiltz.                   Trasporti Srl, Ater Coop., Ecosystem Srl, Smistamento
                                                                    Merci e Portabagagli Scarl, Ditta Tavano Claudio, Trans
                                                                    Est Srl, Cooperativa Friulana Caricatori e Scaricatori,
                                                                    Ditta Manfreda Giovanni, Globaltrans, Autotrasporti
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                    Liberale Srl, Pecile SpA, All Transport Srl, Calligaro
                                                                    Luciano e Carlo Srl, Autotrasporti F.lli Valsecchi, Friulana
                                                                    Gas Srl, Autotrasporti Simcic Adriano SNC, Car Express
Ð ascertain the existence and extent of its credit with the         di Cantarutti Almo, Italsped Srl, Fau SNC, Ditta
     Commission as provided for in Article 7 of Annex 1 to          Chiarcosso Sante, B.P. Transport SAS, Ditta Bazzichetto
     the contract at issue and order the Commission to pay          Giorgio, Trans Friuli Srl, Ditta Bolzon SNC, Immobiliare
     the relevant amount together with interest at the legal        Comuzzi Claudio SNC, Paulon Autotrasporti Srl, Fratelli
     rate and to pay the costs.                                     Zamboni Autotrasporti, represented by Claudio Mussato,
                                                                    of the Udine Bar, with an address for service at his
                                                                    Chambers at 4 Via Dante, Udine.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                    The applicants claim that the Court should:
The applicant entered into the contract (EU s&T FPJ n.
ERB CIPI CT 950027) with the Commission, which                      Ð annul Commission Decision C(97) 2735 final of
provided for the payment of a flat-rate amount                           30 July 1997,
determined on the basis of ECU 10 000 per year per
bursary holder in category 30.
                                                                    Ð in the alternative, annul Article 5 of that Decision
                                                                         inasmuch as it requires the Member State to recover
Since the contract confers jurisdiction on the Community                 the aid (granted as from 1 July 1990), together with
judicature to hear and determine any dispute relating to                 the interest accrued as from the date on which the aid
its performance, the applicant, who holds the view that                  was paid,
Italian law applies, has brought the present action on the
ground of breach of contract.
                                                                    Ð in any event, order the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities to pay the costs.
The      applicant    considers   in    this    regard   that
notwithstanding the fact that he was a category 30                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
bursary-holder from 5 February 1996 to 5 November
1997 at the Institute for Molecular Science, Okazaki
(Japan) and despite repeated requests to the Commission,            The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
the defendant has never paid him the flat-rate amount               relied upon in Case T-288/97 Regione Friuli-Venezia
provided for in the abovementioned contract, considering            Giulia v. Commission (1).
himself entitled to an amount corresponding to the 21
months of his bursary studies.
                                                                    (1) OJ C 7, 10.1.1998, p. 25.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 11 November 1997 in Case C-349/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Frits Loendersloot, trading as F. Loendersloot Internationale Expeditie v. George Ballantine & Son Ltd and Others (Article 36 of the EC Treaty - Trade mark rights - Relabelling of whisky bottles)

text:
10. 1. 98             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 7/3
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                    of 11 November 1997                                                   of 11 November 1997
in Case C-349/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Frits Loendersloot,                  in Joined Cases C-359/95 P and C-379/95 P: Commission
trading as F. Loendersloot Internationale Expeditie v.               of the European Communities and French Republic v.
         George Ballantine & Son Ltd and Others (1)                                      Ladbroke Racing Ltd (1)
(Article 36 of the EC Treaty Ð Trade mark rights Ð                   (Competition Ð Articles 85, 86 and 90 of the EC Treaty
                Relabelling of whisky bottles)                       Ð Rejection of a complaint concerning the conduct of
                         (98/C 7/05)                                 an undertaking without a prior examination of the
                                                                     compatibility of national legislation affecting such
                                                                                conduct)
                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                                (98/C 7/06)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
In Case C-349/95: reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden
(Supreme Court of the Netherlands) for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
between Frits Loendersloot, trading as F. Loendersloot               In Joined Cases C-359/95 P and C-379/95 P: Commission
                                                                     of the European Communities (Agents: Francisco Enrique
Internationale Expeditie, and George Ballantine & Son
Ltd and Others Ð on the interpretation of Article 36 of              GonzaÂlez Díaz and Richard Lyal) and French Republic
                                                                     (Jean-FrancËois Dobelle, assisted by Catherine de Salins) Ð
the EC Treaty Ð the Court, composed of: G. C.
Rodríguez Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur),              two appeals against the judgment of the Court of First
H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet (Presidents of Chambers),                  Instance (First Chamber, Extended Composition) of
                                                                     18 September 1995 in Case T-548/93 Ladbroke Racing v.
J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray,
D. A. O. Edward, G. Hirsch, P. Jann and L. Sevón,                    Commission [1995] ECR II-2565, seeking to have that
Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General; D. Louterman-                judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings
                                                                     being Ladbroke Racing Ltd, a company incorporated
Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has
given a judgment on 11 November 1997, in which it has                under English law, represented by Jeremy Lever QC and
                                                                     Christopher Vajda, Barrister, instructed by Stephen Kon,
ruled:
                                                                     Solicitor, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                     Chambers of Winandy & Err, 60 Avenue Gaston Diderich
Article 36 of the EC Treaty must be interpreted as                   Ð the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias,
meaning that the owner of trade mark rights may, even if             President, C. Gulmann, H. Ragnemalm and R. Schintgen
that constitutes a barrier to intra-Community trade, rely            (Presidents of Chambers), G. F. Mancini, P. J. G. Kapteyn
on those rights to prevent a third party from removing               (Rapporteur), J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward, J.-P.
and then reaffixing or replacing labels bearing the mark             Puissochet, G. Hirsch and P. Jann, Judges; G. Cosmas,
which the owner has himself affixed to products he has               Advocate-General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for
put on the Community market, unless:                                 the Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 November
                                                                     1997, in which it:
Ð it is established that the use of the trade mark rights
     by the owner to oppose the marketing of the
     relabelled products under that trade mark would
     contribute to artificial partitioning of the markets            1. sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance
     between Member States,                                              of 18 September 1995 in Case T-548/93 Ladbroke
                                                                         Racing v. Commission;
Ð it is shown that the relabelling cannot affect the
     original condition of the product,
                                                                     2. refers the case back to the Court of First Instance;
Ð the presentation of the relabelled product is not such
     as to be liable to damage the reputation of the trade
     mark and its owner, and
                                                                     3. reserves costs.
Ð the person who relabels the products informs the trade
     mark owner of the relabelling before the relabelled
     products are put on sale.                                       (1) OJ C 31, 3. 2. 1996.
(1) OJ C 351, 30. 12. 1995.


title: Case T-400/13: Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2015 — L’Oréal v OHIM — Cosmetica Cabinas (AINHOA) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark AINHOA — Earlier Community and international figurative marks NOA — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               23.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 389/34

         Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2015 — L’Oréal v OHIM — Cosmetica Cabinas (AINHOA)
   (Case T-400/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark AINHOA - Earlier Community and international figurative marks NOA - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 389/35)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: L'Oréal (Paris, France) (represented by: H. Granado Carpenter and M.L. Polo Carreño, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: O. Mondéjar Ortuño and A. Schifko, agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Cosmetica Cabinas SL (El Masnou, Spain) (represented by: L. Montoya Terán and J.-B. Devaureix, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 June 2013 (Case R 1643/2012-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between L’Oréal and Cosmetica Cabinas SL.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders L’Oréal to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 298, 12.10.2013.


title: Case C-248/03: Action brought on 6 June 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against (1) "TASEIS TRENDS" (Transport Environment Development Systems) and (2) Marios Kontaratos and Others

text:
2.8.2003               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 184/25
The Commission claims that the Court should:                                    amounting to EUR 15 745,34 on 30 September 2002
                                                                                and to EUR 7,97 (7,03 plus 0,94) per day until the
—     declare that, by failing to adopt and, in any event, to                   defendant's debt has been fully discharged, or, in the
      notify to the Commission the laws, regulations and                        alternative, interest for late payment under Article 94 of
      administrative provisions necessary to comply with                        Commission Regulation No 3418/93 on the whole sum
      Council Directive 1999/22/EC (1) of 29 March 1999                         of EUR 48 046, at a rate of 5,50% from 31 December
      relating to the keeping of wild animals in zoos, the                      1998 (when the period laid down by the order for
      Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under              payment expired) until the defendant's debt has been fully
      that directive;                                                           discharged, amounting up until 30 September 2002 to
—     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                             EUR 9 911 and thereafter EUR 7,24 per day;
                                                                          —     order the defendants to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In accordance with the third paragraph of Article 249 EC,
directives are binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon             Pleas in law and main arguments
each Member State to which they are addressed.
                                                                          The defendant ‘TASEIS TRENDS’ is a civil-law partnership
Under the first paragraph of Article 10 EC, Member States are             governed by Greek law, which has as its object the promotion
to take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular,          of research and the dissemination of information on proble-
to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaty         matical issues in relation to the environment, development,
or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the                 town planning, transport and so forth. It concluded with the
Community.                                                                Commission, within the framework of Council Decision 94/
                                                                          801/EC of 23 November 1994 adopting a specific programme
It is not disputed by the Hellenic Republic that it must adopt
                                                                          for research and technological development, including demon-
measures to comply with the abovementioned directive.
                                                                          stration in the field of telematics applications of common
                                                                          interest (1994 to 1998) (1), the following contracts: (i) Contract
The Commission records that until now the Hellenic Republic
                                                                          ARTEMIS — EN 1001 (implementation of the project ‘Artemis
has not adopted the appropriate measures for the full incor-
                                                                          — Application Research and Testing for Emergency Manage-
poration of the directive at issue into Greek law.
                                                                          ment Intelligent Systems’) and (ii) Contract TILEMATT —
                                                                          TR 1057 (implementation of the project ‘Tilematt — Testing
(1) OJ L 94, 9.4.1999, p. 24.                                             and Implementing Links in Europe for Multimodal Applica-
                                                                          tions of Transport Telematics’).
                                                                          Serious financial contraventions on the part of the defendant
                                                                          were found following audits by the Court of Auditors and the
                                                                          Commission. Since the defendant did not produce the evidence
Action brought on 6 June 2003 by the Commission of the                    needed to overturn the audit's conclusions, the Commission
European Communities against (1) ‘TASEIS TRENDS’                          considered the contracts to be terminated and sought reimbur-
(Transport Environment Development Systems) and (2)                       sement of the sums overpaid.
                 Marios Kontaratos and Others
                          (Case C-248/03)                                 The Commission pleads:
                          (2003/C 184/45)                                 —     in support of its principal claim: Article 5,3(a)(ii) of
                                                                                Annex II to the contracts, which provides that the
                                                                                Commission may immediately terminate the contract, or
An action against (1) ‘TASEIS TRENDS’ (Transport Environ-                       the participation of any contractor, by written notice for
ment Development Systems) and (2) Marios Kontaratos and                         any financial irregularity of a serious nature;
Others was brought before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities on 6 June 2003 by the Commission                     —     in support of the principal head of claim regarding
of the European Communities, represented by Maria Patakia, of                   payment of interest: the third paragraph of Article 5,4 of
its Legal Service, Maria Bra, of the Brussels Bar, and K.                       Annex II to the contracts, which provides that, in the
Kapoutzidou, of the Athens Bar, with an address for service                     event of termination of the contract under Article 5,3(a)
in Luxembourg.                                                                  of the annex, interest is payable on any amount to be
                                                                                reimbursed;
The Commission claims that the Court should:
                                                                          —     in support of the alternative head of claim regarding
—     allow the application in its entirety;                                    payment of interest: Article 94 of Commission Regulation
                                                                                No 3418/93 of 9 December 1993 laying down detailed
—     order the defendant partnership ‘TASEIS TRENDS’ and the                   rules for the implementation of certain provisions of the
      defendants who are members thereof to reimburse to the                    Financial Regulation of 21 December 1977 (2).
      Commission the entire amount of the wrongly made
      advance payments received by the defendant partnership
      from the Community in respect of the contracts at issue,            (1) OJ L 334, 22.12.1994, p. 1.
      that is to say the sum of EUR 48 046, together with                 (2) OJ L 315, 16.12.1993, p. 1.
      contractual interest in respect of the period from the date
      of mispayment, the interest calculated in that way


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 January 2002 in Case T-386/00 Margarida Gonçalves v European Parliament (Officials of the European Communities — Competition notice — Non-admission to a competition — Consistency between pleas put forward during the administrative procedure and those set out in the application — Admissibility — Statement of reasons — Administration's duty to have regard for the interests of officials and the principle of sound administration)

text:
20.4.2002                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 97/11
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                for service in Luxembourg, v Commission of the European
                                                                           Communities (Agent: H. van Lier) — application for an order
                         of 23 January 2002                                requiring the Commission to pay the sum of 68 070 EUR in
                                                                           the context of ALTENER-AGORES contract No X-
in Case T-386/00 Margarida Gonçalves v European Parlia-                    VII/4.1030/Z/99-085, together with interest at the Belgian
                               ment (1)                                    statutory rate applying from 23 July 2001, to be paid within
                                                                           eight days from delivery of the decision to be given, or in
(Officials of the European Communities — Competition                       default to pay a periodic penalty of 100 EUR for each day’s
notice — Non-admission to a competition — Consistency                      delay — the President of the Court of First Instance made an
between pleas put forward during the administrative proce-                 order on 7 December 2001, the operative part of which is as
dure and those set out in the application — Admissibility —                follows:
Statement of reasons — Administration’s duty to have
regard for the interests of officials and the principle of sound           1.    The application for interim measures is dismissed.
                           administration)
                                                                           2.    The costs are reserved.
                           (2002/C 97/22)
                     (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-386/00, Margarida Gonçalves, former member of
the temporary staff, residing in Brussels, represented by                  Action brought on 24 January 2002 by Falk-Ulrich von
L. Tinti, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg,                           Hoff against the European Parliament
against European Parliament (Agents: J.F. De Wachter and
D. Moore) — application to annul the decisions of the selection                                       (Case T-13/02)
board rejecting the application of the applicant in internal
competition B/172, establishing the list of suitable candidates                                       (2002/C 97/24)
and all decisions taken by the defendant on the basis of such
decisions, and for compensation for the pecuniary and non-
pecuniary damage allegedly suffered as a result of those                                      (Language of the case: German)
decisions, — the Court of First Instance (Single Judge: M. Vila-
ras); Registrar: J. Plingers, Administrator, has given a judgment
on 23 January 2002, the operative part of which is as follows:             An action against the European Parliament was brought before
                                                                           the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
1.    The application is dismissed.                                        24 January 2002 by Falk-Ulrich von Hoff, of Berlin (Germany),
                                                                           represented by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer.
2.    The parties shall bear their own costs.
(1) OJ 2001 C 61.                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           —     annul the European Parliament’s decision of 17 April
                                                                                2001;
                                                                           —     order the European Parliament to pay to the applicant
                                                                                the installation allowance amounting to two months’
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
                                                                                salary, together with interest at the rate of 8 % from the
                             INSTANCE
                                                                                date of the request (15 March);
                        of 7 December 2001                                 —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
in Case T-192/01 R: Lior GEIE v Commission of the
                      European Communities
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
(Procedure for interim relief — Payment under a contract —
                  Interim measures — Urgency)
                                                                           In the context of the transfer of the liaison centre of the
                                                                           European People’s Party from Bonn to Berlin, the applicant,
                           (2002/C 97/23)                                  whose place of employment was Brussels and who took over
                                                                           as head of the liaison centre, was moved to Berlin. He applied
                     (Language of the case: French)                        for the grant of an installation allowance pursuant to Article 5
                                                                           of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations. The institution refused
                                                                           that application on the ground that the applicant had returned
In Case T-192/01 R: Lior GEIE, established in Brussels, repre-             to live with his family, who had already been residing in Berlin
sented by V. Marien and J. Choucroun, lawyers, with an address             prior to the transfer of the applicant.


title: Case T-378/05: Action brought on  7 October 2005  — Marenco v Commission

text:
               14.1.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 10/22

         Action brought on 7 October 2005 — Marenco v Commission
   (Case T-378/05)
   (2006/C 10/45)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Giuliano Marenco (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A. Pappalardo, M. Merola, lawyers)

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

               —

               annul the determination of the applicant's salary of January 2005 (last month of service),

                           —

                           to the extent that that determination fails to take into account the increase in basic salary provided for in Article 7(4) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations,

                           —

                           to the extent that the multiplication factor is shown as 0.9982852 instead of 1;

               —

               annul the decision awarding and calculating the applicant's pension rights, adopted on 31 January 2005 by the Head of the Pensions unit of the Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements,

                           —

                           to the extent that it fails to take into account the increase in basic salary provided for in Article 7(4) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations,

                           —

                           to the extent that the figure 0.9982852 appears instead of 1 in the classification at the termination of service,

                           —

                           to the extent that it establishes the pension classification as A*16/03,

               —

               annul the decision of 1 July 2005 adopted by the Director General of the Directorate for Personnel and Administration (ADMIN.B. 2 — SHS/amd — D (05)15121), which rejected both of the applicant's complaints (No R/266/05 and R/298/05),

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, former Deputy Director-General of the Commission's Legal Service, who retired in February 2005, was classified, before leaving the service, at grade A*16 and benefited, until the end of 2004, from the increase in salary provided for in Article 7(4) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations. In accordance with the amendments to the Staff Regulations which entered into force on 1 May 2004, a multiplication factor of 0.9580274 was applicable to his basic salary, reflecting the difference between the basic salary laid down for his grade and step under the old and new Staff Regulations.
   On 1 January 2005, the applicant reached the sixth step in his grade. Since the basic salaries laid down for that step under the old and new Staff Regulations are the same, the applicant takes the view that the applicable multiplication factor should from then on be ‘1’. However, a multiplication factor of 0.9982852 appeared, from that month onwards, both on his last salary slip and in the decision awarding and calculating his pension rights. In addition, the increase in salary provided for in Article 7(4) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations was not included in his salary for the month of January 2005 and, consequently, was not taken into account when determining his pension rights, which were calculated on the basis of his salary for that month. Finally, the decision determining the pension rights classified the applicant at step 3, instead of step 6, in his grade.
   In support of his action, the applicant claims infringement of Article 2(2), of Article 7(4), and of Article 8(2) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations. He also pleads infringement of his legitimate expectations, allegedly arising from the result of an indicative calculation of his pension rights which he carried out with the assistance of an IT tool (‘calculette’), which the Commission provided to staff. According to the applicant, the ‘calculette’ envisaged that the increase in question would be taken into account when determining the pension.


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 10 February 2005 in Case T-291/04 R, Enviro Tech Europe Ltd and Enviro Tech International, Inc., v Commission of the European Communities (Interim measures — Directives 67/548/EEC and 2004/73/EC)

text:
               28.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 132/29

      ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 10 February 2005
   in Case T-291/04 R, Enviro Tech Europe Ltd and Enviro Tech International, Inc., v Commission of the European Communities
   (Interim measures - Directives 67/548/EEC and 2004/73/EC)
   (2005/C 132/53)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case T-291/04 R: Enviro Tech Europe Ltd, established in Surrey (United Kingdom), and Enviro Tech International, Inc., established in Chicago, Illinois (United States), represented by C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: X. Lewis and D. Recchia, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for, first, suspension of the inclusion of n-propyl-bromide in Commission Directive 2004/73/EC of 29 April 2004, adapting to technical progress for the 29th time Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (OJ 2004 L 152, p. 1) and, second, further interim measures — the President of the Court of First Instance made an order on 10 February 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case C-384/12: Order of the President of the Court of 11 December 2012 — (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Rostock — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Per Harald Lökkevik, other party to the proceedings: Staatsanwaltschaft Rostock

text:
               2.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/16

         Order of the President of the Court of 11 December 2012 — (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Rostock — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Per Harald Lökkevik, other party to the proceedings: Staatsanwaltschaft Rostock
   (Case C-384/12) (1)

   2013/C 63/31
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 343, 10.11.2012.


title: Case T-177/17: Action brought on 15 March 2017 — EKETA v Commission

text:
               15.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/41

         Action brought on 15 March 2017 — EKETA v Commission
   (Case T-177/17)
   (2017/C 151/53)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Ethniko Kentro Erevnas kai Technologikis Anaptyxis (EKETA) (Thessaloniki, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos and S. Paliou, lawyers

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               declare that the request made by the European Commission to ΕΚΕΤΑ to reimburse the amount of EUR 211 185,95 of the payment received by it for the ASK-IT project, that request being made in the debit note 3241615292/29.11.2016, is unfounded with respect to the sum of EUR 143 910,77;

               —

               declare that the sum of EUR 143 910,77 constitutes eligible costs and that ΕΚΕΤΑ is not obliged to repay that sum to the European Commission, and

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               By this action, the Ethniko Kentro Erevnas kai Technologikis Anaptyxis (EKETA) challenges the requests made by the Commission by means of its debit note 3241615292/29.11.2016, in relation to participation in the ASK-IT project. By means of that debit note, the Commission requested that ΕΚΕΤΑ reimburse part of the payment received by it for the ASK-IT project, a sum of EUR 211 185,95. The request follows an on-the-spot audit which was carried out by the European Commission at the applicant’s premises.

               2.

               In that context, the applicant claims that the General Court of the European Union, under Article 272 TFEU, should declare that, out of the above amount stated in the debit note, the sum of EUR 143 910,77 constitutes eligible costs and that ΕΚΕΤΑ is not obliged to repay that sum to the Commission.

               3.

               ΕΚΕΤΑ maintains that the above amount of EUR 143 910,77 constitutes eligible staff costs, subcontracting costs and indirect costs, which the Commission wrongly rejected as being ineligible. The eligibility of the applicant’s costs is demonstrated by the evidence that it submitted to the European Commission at the on-the-spot audit and in subsequent correspondence and that it submits to the General Court.


title: Case C-65/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bari (Italy) lodged on 12 February 2015 — Criminal proceedings against Vito Santoro

text:
               27.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/38

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bari (Italy) lodged on 12 February 2015 — Criminal proceedings against Vito Santoro
   (Case C-65/15)
   (2015/C 138/51)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Bari

      Party to the main proceedings

   Vito Santoro

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU, as also construed in the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 16 February 2012 [in Joined Cases C-72/10 and C-77/10], to be interpreted as precluding a call for tenders for the award of licences with a period of validity shorter than that of licences awarded in the past, where that tendering procedure has been launched in order to remedy the consequences of the unlawful exclusion of a certain number of operators from earlier tendering procedures?

               2.

               Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU, as also construed in [that] judgment of the Court of Justice […], to be interpreted as precluding the possibility that sufficient justification for the shorter period of validity of licences offered for tender, as compared with licences awarded in the past, can be found in the requirement for the licensing system to be reorganised through the alignment of licence expiry dates?

               3.

               Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU, as also construed in [that] judgment of the Court of Justice […], to be interpreted as precluding the imposition of an obligation to transfer, free of charge, the use of tangible and intangible assets represented by the betting management and collection network in the event that the activity has ceased owing to the expiry of the licence or as a result of measures disqualifying the licence-holder or withdrawing the licence?


title: Case T-513/13: Judgment of the General Court of 6 March 2015 — Braun Melsungen v OHIM (SafeSet) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark SafeSet — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons — First sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 — Examination of the facts by the Office of its own motion — Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               27.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/47

         Judgment of the General Court of 6 March 2015 — Braun Melsungen v OHIM (SafeSet)
   (Case T-513/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark SafeSet - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons - First sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 - Examination of the facts by the Office of its own motion - Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 138/61)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: B. Braun Melsungen AG (Melsungen, Germany) (represented by: M.-C. Seiler, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 June 2013 (Case R 1598/2012-1), concerning an application for registration of the word mark SafeSet as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders B. Braun Melsungen AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 336, 16.11.2013.