title: Judgment of the Court of first instance 7 February 2002 in Case T-187/94: Theresia Rudolph v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (Action for damages — Non-contractual liability — Milk — Additional levy — Reference quantity — Regulation (EC) No 2187/93 — Compensation for producers — Interruption of the limitation period)

text:
C 118/22                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         18.5.2002
                                                           COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                       1977 introducing a system of premiums for the non-marketing
                                                                                of milk and milk products and for the conversion of dairy herds,
                                                                                did not deliver milk during the reference year opted for by the
                          7 February 2002                                         Member State concerned;
in Case T-187/94: Theresia Rudolph v Council of the                         2.    Declares that the period in respect of which the applicant must
European Union and Commission of the European Com-                                be compensated for the losses sustained as a result of the
                             munities (1)                                         application of Regulation No 857/84 is that beginning on
                                                                                5 August 1987 and ending on 28 March 1989;
(Action for damages — Non-contractual liability — Milk —                    3.    Orders the parties to forward to the Court, within six months
Additional levy — Reference quantity — Regulation (EC)                            of this judgment, particulars of the amounts to be paid,
No 2187/93 — Compensation for producers — Interruption                            established by mutual agreement;
                      of the limitation period)
                                                                            4.    Orders the parties, in the absence of such agreement, to submit
                                                                                to the Court within the same period their quantified claims;
                           (2002/C 118/34)
                                                                            5.    Reserves the costs.
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                            (1) OJ C 174 of 25.6.1994.
In Case T-187/94, Theresia Rudolf, residing in Rasdorf-
Grüsselbach (Germany), represented by B. Meisterernst,
M. Düsing, D. Mannstetten, F. Schulze and C.-H. Husemann,
lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Council
of the European Union (Agent: A.-M. Colaert) and Commission                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
of the European Communities (Agents: D. Booß, M. Niejahr,
H.-J. Rabe and M. Núñez-Müller): Application for compen-
sation under Article 178 and the second paragraph of                                                  7 February 2002
Article 215 of the EC Treaty (now Article 235 EC and the
second paragraph of Article 288 EC) for damage suffered by                  in Case T-199/94: Hans-Walter Gosch v Commission of
the applicant as a result of her having been prevented from                                  the European Communities (1)
marketing milk by virtue of Council Regulation (EEC) No 857/
84 of 31 March 1984 adopting general rules for the application
                                                                            (Action for damages — Non-contractual liability — Milk —
of the levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC)
                                                                            Additional levy — Reference quantity — Producer who
No 804/68 in the milk and milk products sector (OJ 1984
                                                                            has entered into a non-marketing undertaking — Non-
L 90, p. 13), as supplemented by Commission Regulation
                                                                               resumption of production on expiry of the undertaking)
(EEC) No 1371/84 of 16 May 1984 laying down detailed rules
for the application of the additional levy referred to in
Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 (OJ 1984 L 132,                                              (2002/C 118/35)
p. 11), Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of:
P. Mengozzi, President, V. Tilli and R. M. Moura Ramos,                                        (Language of the case: German)
Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
given a judgment on 7 February 2002, in which it:
                                                                            In Case T-199/94, Hans-Walter Gosch, residing in Högersdorf
1.    Declares that the defendants are bound to make good the               (Germany), represented by D. Hansen and S. Vieregge, lawyers,
      damage sustained by the applicant as a result of the application      with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Commission of
      of Council Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984                the European Communities (Agents: D. Booß, M. Niejahr
      adopting general rules for the application of the levy referred to    and M. Núñez-Müller): Application for compensation under
      in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk               Article 178 and the second paragraph of Article 215 of the EC
      and milk products sector, as supplemented by Commission               Treaty (now Article 235 EC and the second paragraph of
      Regulation (EEC) No 1371/84 of 16 May 1984 laying down                Article 288 EC) for damage suffered by the applicant as a
      detailed rules for the application of the additional levy referred    result of his having been prevented from marketing milk by
      to in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68, in so far as          virtue of Council Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 of 31 March
      those regulations did not make provision for the allocation of a      1984 adopting general rules for the application of the levy
      reference quantity to producers who, pursuant to an undertaking       referred to in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the
      given under Council Regulation (EEC) No 1078/77 of 17 May             milk and milk products sector (OJ 1984 L 90, p. 13),


title: Case C-456/13 P: Appeal brought on 09/08/2013 by T & L Sugars Ltd, Sidul Açúcares, Unipessoal Lda against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 6 June 2013 in Case T-279/11: T & L Sugars Ltd, Sidul Açúcares, Unipessoal Lda v European Commission

text:
               9.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 325/16

         Appeal brought on 09/08/2013 by T & L Sugars Ltd, Sidul Açúcares, Unipessoal Lda against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 6 June 2013 in Case T-279/11: T & L Sugars Ltd, Sidul Açúcares, Unipessoal Lda v European Commission
   (Case C-456/13 P)
   2013/C 325/27
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: T & L Sugars Ltd, Sidul Açúcares, Unipessoal Lda (represented by: D. Waelbroeck, avocat, D. Slater, Solicitor)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Council of the European Union, French Republic

      Form of order sought

   The appellants claim that the Court should:

               —

               declare the present appeal admissible and well founded;

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2013 in Case T-279/11 (‘the Contested Judgment’) to the extent it dismisses as inadmissible the Appellants' action for annulment and rejects its related pleas of illegality;

               —

               refer the case back to the General Court for examination of the substance;

               —

               order the Commission to pay all costs and expenses before the Court of Justice.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Appellants put forward the following grounds in support of their Appeal:

               1.

               the GC committed an error of law in concluding that the Contested Regulations entailed implementing measures within the meaning of Article 263(4) TFEU;

               2.

               the GC committed an error of law in concluding that Regulation 393/2011 (1) was not of individual concern to the Appellants;

               3.

               the GC committed an en-or of law in rejecting the plea of illegality, as a result of errors (1) and (2) above.

         As a result, the Appellants request your Court (i) to set aside the Contested Judgment to the extent that it declares inadmissible the Application for Annulment and rejects the plea of illegality; and (ii) refer the case back to the GC.

      (1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 393/2011 of 19 April 2011 fixing the allocation coefficient for the issuing of import licences applied for from 1 to 7 April 2011 for sugar products under certain tariff quotas and suspending submission of applications for such licences
   OJ L 104, p. 39


title: Case F-7/14: Action brought on 29 January 2014 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               22.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 85/28

         Action brought on 29 January 2014 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-7/14)
   2014/C 85/49
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: A. Salerno, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the Commission decision to reduce to two years instead of three the extension period of the temporary staff contract of the applicant.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the European Commission of 18 July 2013 reducing from three to two years the extension period of the temporary staff contract of the applicant granted by decision of 23 November 2011;

               —

               Fix at EUR 45 000, together with default interest, the amount of compensation due to the applicant in the event that the Commission is, lawfully, unable to reinstate the applicant for the period of one year;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the entirety of the costs.


title: Case T-97/17: Action brought on 16 February 2017 — Franmax v EUIPO — R. Seelig & Hille (her- bea)

text:
               10.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/46

         Action brought on 16 February 2017 — Franmax v EUIPO — R. Seelig & Hille (her- bea)
   (Case T-97/17)
   (2017/C 112/64)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Franmax UAB (Vilnius, Lithuania) (represented by: E. Saukalas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: R. Seelig & Hille OHG (Düsseldorf, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘her- bea’– Application for registration No 12 689 964

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 December 2016 in Case R 371/2016-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-665/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 22 December 2016 — Minister Finansów v Gmina Wrocław

text:
               10.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/15

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 22 December 2016 — Minister Finansów v Gmina Wrocław
   (Case C-665/16)
   (2017/C 112/23)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant in cassation: Minister Finansów

      Respondent in the appeal in cassation: Gmina Wrocław

      Questions referred

   Does the transfer, pursuant to the law, of the ownership of immovable property owned by a municipality to the State Treasury in return for payment of compensation, in the case where, under the rules of national law, that immovable property continues to be managed by the mayor of the municipality, who is simultaneously the representative of the State Treasury and the executive body of the municipality, constitute a taxable transaction within the meaning of Article 14(2)(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax? (1)

   In answering that question, is it significant whether the compensation paid to the municipality consists of an actual payment or is a mere internal accounting transfer within the municipal budget?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: Case C-259/04: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of  30 March 2006  (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Queen's Bench Division)) — Elizabeth Florence Emanuel v Continental Shelf 128 Ltd, (Trade marks of such a nature as to deceive the public or liable to mislead the public as to the nature, quality or geographical origin of a product — Trade mark assigned by the proprietor together with the undertaking producing the goods to which the mark relates — Directive 89/104/EEC)

text:
               17.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/10

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 30 March 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Queen's Bench Division)) — Elizabeth Florence Emanuel v Continental Shelf 128 Ltd,
   (Case C-259/04) (1)

   (Trade marks of such a nature as to deceive the public or liable to mislead the public as to the nature, quality or geographical origin of a product - Trade mark assigned by the proprietor together with the undertaking producing the goods to which the mark relates - Directive 89/104/EEC)
   (2006/C 143/18)
   Language of the case: English
   Referring court
   High Court of Justice (Queen's Bench Division)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant(s): Elizabeth Florence Emanuel

      Defendant(s): Continental Shelf 128 Ltd,
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Justice (Queen's Bench Division) — Interpretation of Articles 3(1)(g) and 12(2)(b) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks — Trade marks which are of such a nature as to deceive the public or to mislead it as to the nature, quality or geographical origin of a product — Trade mark assigned by the proprietor together with the undertaking producing the goods to which that mark relates — ‘Elizabeth Emanuel’ wedding dresses
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               A trade mark corresponding to the name of the designer and first manufacturer of the goods bearing that mark may not, by reason of that particular feature alone, be refused registration on the ground that it would deceive the public, within the meaning of Article 3(1)(g) of Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks, in particular where the goodwill associated with that trade mark, previously registered in a different graphic form, has been assigned together with the business making the goods to which the mark relates.

               2.

               A trade mark corresponding to the name of the designer and first manufacturer of the goods bearing that mark is not, by reason of that particular feature alone, liable to revocation on the ground that that mark would mislead the public, within the meaning of Article 12(2)(b) of Directive 89/104, in particular where the goodwill associated with that mark has been assigned together with the business making the goods to which the mark relates.

      (1)  OJ C 217 28.8.2004.


title: Joined Cases T-439/10 and T-440/10: Judgment of the General Court of 21 March 2012 — Fulmen and Mahmoudian v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Actions for annulment — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Error of assessment — Burden and standard of proof)

text:
               5.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 133/24

         Judgment of the General Court of 21 March 2012 — Fulmen and Mahmoudian v Council
   (Joined Cases T-439/10 and T-440/10) (1)

   (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Actions for annulment - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Error of assessment - Burden and standard of proof)
   2012/C 133/47
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Fulmen (Teheran, Iran) and Fereydoun Mahmoudian (Teheran) (represented by: A. Kronshagen, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and R. Liudvinaviciute-Cordeiro, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Konstantinidis and É. Cujo, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2010 of 26 July 2010 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 25), and Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010 amending Decision 2010/413 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 81), and Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 1), in so far as those measures concern the applicants, and, further, an application for recognition of the damage suffered by the applicants due to the adoption of the abovementioned measures.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The General Court:

               1.

               annuls, in so far as they concern Fulmen and Mr Fereydoun Mahmoudian:

                           —

                           Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP,

                           —

                           Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2010 of 26 July 2010 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran,

                           —

                           Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010 amending Decision 2010/413 and

                           —

                           Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 423/2007;

               2.

               orders the effects of Decision 2010/413, as amended by Decision 2010/644, to be maintained as regards Fulmen and Mr Mahmoudian until the annulment of Regulation No 961/2010 takes effect;

               3.

               dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               4.

               orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Fulmen and by Mr Mahmoudian;

               5.

               orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 328, 4.12.2010.


title: Case C-405/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 18 September 2008 — Ingeniørforeningen i Danmark, acting for Bertram Holst v Dansk Industri, acting for Babcock & Wilcox Vølund ApS

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/22

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 18 September 2008 — Ingeniørforeningen i Danmark, acting for Bertram Holst v Dansk Industri, acting for Babcock & Wilcox Vølund ApS
   (Case C-405/08)
   (2008/C 301/35)
   Language of the case: Danish
   Referring court
   Vestre Landsret
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ingeniørforeningen i Danmark, acting for Bertram Holst

      Defendant: Dansk Industri, acting for Babcock & Wilcox Vølund ApS
   Question referred

               1.

               There is disagreement amongst the parties as to whether Directive 2002/14/EC establishing a general framework for informing and consulting (1) employees has been correctly implemented in the Cooperation Agreement between DA and LO. In that connection, do Community rules preclude implementation of a directive in such a manner that groups of employees are covered by a collective agreement between parties which do not represent the professional group of the persons concerned and where the collective agreement does not cover the professional group of the persons concerned?

               2.

               If Directive 2002/14/EC has been correctly implemented for BH in the Cooperation Agreement between DA and LO, has Article 7 of the Directive been correctly implemented when it is established that the Cooperation Agreement does not contain a high standard of protection against dismissal for certain professional groups?

               3.

               If BH is covered by the legislative implementation of the Directive, do the requirements of Article 7 of the Directive concerning ‘adequate protection and guarantees to enable them to perform properly the duties which have been assigned to them’ preclude an implementation of Article 7 of the Directive in section 8 of the [Law on informing and consulting employees], which reads as follows: ‘The representatives who are to be informed and consulted on behalf of the employees shall be protected against dismissal or other adverse consequences for their conditions of employment in the same manner as union representatives in the same or a similar professional field’, if the implementation does not contain a high standard of protection against dismissal for professional groups which are not covered by a collective agreement?

      (1)  OJ 2002 L 80, p. 29.


title: Case C-69/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Civitavecchia by order of that Court of 12 January 2004 in the case of Fallimento LIGABUE Gate Gourmet Roma s.p.a. against LSG Sky Chefs s.p.a.

text:
               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/22

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Civitavecchia by order of that Court of 12 January 2004 in the case of Fallimento LIGABUE Gate Gourmet Roma s.p.a. against LSG Sky Chefs s.p.a.
   (Case C-69/04)
   (2004/C 94/47)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Civitavecchia (District Court, Civitavecchia) of 12 January 2004, received at the Court Registry on 16 February 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Fallimento LIGABUE Gate Gourmet Roma s.p.a. against LSG Sky Chefs s.p.a. on the following questions:
   Does Article 18 of Council Directive 96/97/EC (1) of 15 October 1996, considered in conjunction with the principles of Community law, and in particular those of Article 49 (previously 59) of the Treaty, constitute an obstacle to the application of Article 14 of Legislative Decree No 18 of 13 January 1999, in so far as it imposes on providers of airport services the obligation to take on staff, thereby restricting their power of decision regarding entrepreneurial strategies concerning the choice, number and remuneration of employees?

      (1)  OJ L 272 of 25.10.1996, p. 36.


title: Case F-77/10: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 8 December 2010 — Arroyo Redondo v Commission

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/69

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 8 December 2010 — Arroyo Redondo v Commission
   (Case F-77/10) (1)

   ()
   2011/C 30/139
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 301, 6.11.2010, p. 65.


title: Action brought on 23 January 1995 by Ernst-Reinhard Konrad against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-9/95)

text:
No C 119/12         EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                 13 . 5 . 95
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            2 . order the defendants to pay the costs of the
                     of 23 February 1 995                                proceedings.
     in Case T-490/93 : Bremer Vulkan Verbund AG v.
        Commission of the European Communities i 1 )                 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                  (Disclaimer ofjurisdiction)                        The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in
                          ( 95/C 119/29 )                            Case T-20/94 .
               (Language of the case: German)
In Case T-490/93 : Bremer Vulkan Verbund AG, established
in Bremen ( Germany ), represented by Hans-Jürgen Rabe,
Rechtsanwalt of Hamburg and of the Brussels Bar, with an             Action brought on 23 January 1995 by Ernst-Reinhard
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Turk            Konrad against the Council of the European Union and the
& Prum, 13B Avenue Guillaume v. Commission of the                            Commission of the European Communities
European Communities (Agents: B. Smulders and J.                                            (Casé T-9/95 )
Grunwald ) — application for the annulment of Commission                                    ( 95/C 119/31 )
Decision 93/412/EEC of 6 April 1993 concerning aid
awarded by the German Government to Hibeg and by Hibeg
via Krupp GmbH to Bremer Vulkan AG, facilitating the sale                          (Language of the case: German)
of Krupp Atlas Elektronik GmbH from Krupp GmbH
to Bremer Vulkan AG (2 ) — the Court of First Instance               An action against the Council of the European Union and
( Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of                 the Commission of the European Communities was brought
K. Lenaerts, President, R. Schintgen, C. P. Briët,                   before the Court of First Instance of the European
R. García-Valdecasas and C. W. Bellamy, Judges; H. Jung,             Communities on 23 January 1995 by Ernst-Reinhard
Registrar, made an order on 23 February 1995, the                    Konrad, Löllbach (Federal Republic of Germany),
operative part of which is as follows:                               represented by Bernd Meisterernst, Mechtild Düsing,
                                                                     Dietrich Manstetten, Frank Schulze and Winfried
1 , the Court of First Instance declines jurisdiction in Case        Haneklaus, Rechtsanwälte, Münster, with an address for
      T-490/93, Bremer Vulkan Verbund AG v. Commission               service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Dupong &
      of the European Communities, in order to enable the            Associés, 14a Rue des Bains.
      Court of Justice to rule on the applications for
     annulment;                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
2 , the costs are reserved.                                          1 , order the defendants jointly to pay to the applicant
                                                                         SLOM III compensation for the period from 1 July 1984
(M OJ No C 222, 18 . 8 . 1993 .                                          to 29 March 1989 in the amount of DM 83 670,155 ,
(2 ) OJ No L 185 , 28 . 7. 1993 , p. 43 .                                together with interest thereon at 8% from 19 May
                                                                         1992, and jointly to pay the costs of the proceedings;
                                                                     2 , join the present action to that already pending in Case
                                                                         T-77/93 Hülseberg and Others v. Council and
Action brought on 13 January 1995 by Ursula Schottler                    Commission and also stay the proceedings.
against the Council of the European Union and the
          Commission of the European Communities                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                          (Case T-4/95 )
                          ( 95/C 119/30 )                            The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in
                                                                     Case T-20/94 .
               (Language of the case: German)
An action against the Council of the European Union and
the Commission of the European Communities was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 13 January 1995 by Ursula Schottler,                  Action brought on 15 February 1995 by the International
Orsfeld ( Federal Republic of Germany), represented by                     Express Carriers Conference (IECC ) against the
Matthias H. François, Rechtsanwalt, of François, Neuhaus                     Commission of the European Communities
& Kollegen, Bitburg, with an address for service in                                        (Case T-28/95 )
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Annick Wurth, 100                                             ( 95/C 119/32 )
Boulevard de la Pétrusse .
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                         (Language of the case: English)
 1 . grant the applicant compensation for the period during          An action against the Commission of the European
      which she was required not to market produce;                  Communities was brought before the Court of First


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 April 2000 in Case C-348/99: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 96/9/EC — Non-transposition within the prescribed period)

text:
22.7.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 211/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       1. Dismisses the appeal;
                                                                             2. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the
                         (Sixth Chamber)                                         costs.
                         of 13 April 2000                                    (1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.
in Case C-153/99 P: Commission of the European Com-
                munities v Antonio Giannini (1)
(Appeal — Implementation of a judgment of the Court of
               First Instance — Abuse of power)                                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (2000/C 211/01)                                                              (First Chamber)
                                                                                of 13 April 2000
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                             in Case C-348/99: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                   in the European Court Reports)                            Directive 96/9/EC — Non-transposition within the pre-
                                                                                scribed period)
In Case C-153/99 P: Commission of the European Communi-
ties (Agents: G. Valsesia and J. Currall) — appeal against the                                         (2000/C 211/02)
judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of
25 February 1999 in Joined Cases T-282/97 and T-57/98
Giannini v Commission [1999] ECR-SC I-A-33 and II-151,                                           (Language of the case: French)
seeking to have that judgment set aside in so far as it contains
an error of law regarding the abuse of power and the
infringement of Article 176 of the EC Treaty (now Article 233                (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
EC) which the Commission was alleged to have committed,                                         in the European Court Reports)
the other party to the proceedings being Antonio Giannini, an
official of the Commission of the European Communities,                      In Case C-348/99, Commission of the European Communities
residing in Brussels, represented by M. Dallemagne and C. Loc-               (Agents: M. Wolfcarius and M. Desantes Real) v Grand Duchy
chi, of the Brussels Bar, 85 Rue du Prince Royal, B-1050                     of Luxembourg (Agent: M.P. Steinmetz), for a declaration that,
Brussels — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.C. Moit-                by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative
inho de Almeida, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann                        measures necessary in order to comply with Directive 96/9/EC
(Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and F. Macken, Judges;             of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March
F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a              1996 on the legal protection of databases, (OJ 1996 L77,
judgment on 13 April 2000, in which it:                                      p. 20), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its
 ---pagebreak--- C 211/2                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           22.7.2000
obligations under that directive; the Court (First Chamber),              other, by the Member States of the EEC and the Community,
composed of: L. Sevón (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber,            and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the
P. Jann and M. Wathelet, Judges; Advocate General: M.P. Léger;            Community by Council Decision 64/732/EEC of 23 December
Registrar: M.R. Grass, has given a judgment on 13 April 2000,             1963 (OJ 1973 C 133, p. 1) and of Article 41 of the Additional
in which it:                                                              Protocol signed at Brussels on 23 November 1970 and con-
                                                                          cluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community
1. Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and           by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2760/72 of 19 December
     administrative measures necessary in order to comply with            1972 (OJ 1973 C 113, p. 17), — the Court, composed of:
     Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the              R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), President of the Second Chamber,
     Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases,       acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber, P.J.G. Kapteyn,
     the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its               G. Hirsch, H. Ragnemalm and V. Skouris, Judges, A. La Pergola,
     obligations under that directive;                                    Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar,
                                                                          has given a judgment on 11 May 2000, in which it has ruled:
2. Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
                                                                          — Article 13 of the Agreement establishing an Association between
(1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999.                                                   the European Economic Community and Turkey signed at
                                                                              Ankara on 12 September 1963 by the Republic of Turkey, of
                                                                              the one part, and the Member States of the EEC and the
                                                                              Community, of the other part, and concluded, approved and
                                                                              confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Decision
                                                                              64/732/EEC of 23 December 1963 and Article 41(2) of the
                                                                              Additional Protocol signed at Brussels on 23 November 1970
                                                                              and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the
                                                                              Community by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2760/72 of
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       19 December 1972 do not constitute rules of Community law
                                                                              that are directly applicable in the internal legal order of Member
                                                                              States.
                         (Sixth Chamber)
                          of 11 May 2000                                  — Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol has direct effect in
                                                                              Member States.
in Case C-37/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling by the
Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court of Justice of
England & Wales): The Queen v Secretary of State for the                  — Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol is not in itself capable
       Home Department ex parte Abdulnasir Savas (1)                          of conferring upon a Turkish national a right of establishment
                                                                              and, as a corollary, a right of residence in the Member State in
                                                                              whose territory he has remained and carried on business activities
(EEC-Turkey Association — Restrictions on freedom of                          as a self-employed person in breach of the domestic immigration
establishment and right of residence — Article 13 of the                      law.
Association Agreement and Article 41 of the Additional
Protocol — Direct effect — Scope — Turkish national
         unlawfully present in the host Member State)
                                                                          — However, Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol prohibits the
                                                                              introduction of new national restrictions on the freedom of
                         (2000/C 211/03)                                      establishment and right of residence of Turkish nationals as from
                                                                              the date on which that protocol entered into force in the host
                                                                              Member State. It is for the national court to interpret domestic
                    (Language of the case: English)                           law for the purposes of determining whether the rules applied to
                                                                              the applicant in the main proceedings are less favourable than
                                                                              those which were applicable at the time when the Additional
                                                                              Protocol entered into force.
In Case C-37/98: Reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Queen’s Bench
Division of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales                (1) OJ C 113 of 11.4.1998.
(United Kingdom) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
pending before that court between The Queen and Secretary
of State for the Home Department, ex parte: Abdulnasir
Savas on the interpretation of Article 13 of the Agreement
establishing an Association between the European Economic
Community and Turkey signed at Ankara on 12 September
1963, on the one hand, by the Republic of Turkey and, on the


title: Case F-71/06: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 25 April 2007 — Lebedef-Caponi v Commission (Officials — Appraisal — Career development report — 2004 appraisal procedure — GIP of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations — Article 26 of the Staff Regulations)

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/40

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 25 April 2007 — Lebedef-Caponi v Commission
   (Case F-71/06) (1)

   (Officials - Appraisal - Career development report - 2004 appraisal procedure - GIP of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations - Article 26 of the Staff Regulations)
   (2007/C 96/84)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Maddalena Lebedef-Caponi (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Curall and H. Kraemer, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of the applicant's Career Development Report in respect of the period 1/1/2004 — 31/12/2004
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 190, 12.8.2006, p. 36.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal da Comarca Setúbal, Third Civil Chamber, by order of that court of 15 July 1998 in the case of Vitor Manuel Mendes Ferreira and Maria Clara Delgado Correia Ferreira, his spouse, against Companhia de Seguros Mundial Confiança S.A. (Case C-348/98)

text:
C 358/6               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     21.11.98
C. Gulmann, H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet and R.                         Circondariale, Pinerolo (District Magistrate's Court,
Schintgen, Presidents of Chambers, G. F. Mancini, J. C.              Pinerolo), of 3 September 1998, received at the Court on
Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray,                 21 September 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann, L.            Renato Collino and Luisella Chiappero against Telecom
Sevón (Rapporteur) and K. M. Ioannou, Judges; J.                     Italia SpA on the following questions:
Mischo, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made
an order on 23 September 1998, the operative part of
which is as follows:                                                 (A)    Does Article 1 of Directive 77/187/EEC (1) apply to
                                                                            the transfer for value, authorised by law
                                                                            promulgated by the State and implemented by
Consideration of the question referred has not disclosed                    ministerial decree, of an undertaking managed by a
any factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of                      public entity which is a direct emanation of the
Article 5 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 3477/93 of                       State to a private company formed by another
17 December 1993 concerning the agricultural conversion                     public entity which holds all its shares, where the
rates to be applied in the tobacco sector.                                  activity transferred is assigned to the private
                                                                            company under the administrative licence system?
(1) OJ C 354, 23.11.1996.
                                                                     and if so
                                                                     (B1) Does Article 3(1) of Directive 77/187/EEC require it
                                                                            to be held that the continuation of the employment
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht                     relationship with the transferor is mandatory, with
Düsseldorf by order of that court of 14 September 1998 in                   the result that the worker's length of service
  the case of Peacock AG against Hauptzollamt Paderborn                     continues to be computed as from the date on which
                                                                            he was taken on by the transferor and he continues
                       (Case C-339/98)
                                                                            to be entitled to payment of a lump sum by way of
                         (98/C 358/12)                                      severance pay which treats as a single unit the time
                                                                            spent by him in the transferor and transferee's
                                                                            employment?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht
Düsseldorf (Finance Court, Düsseldorf) of 14 September               (B2) On a proper construction of Article 3(1), do the
1998, received at the Court Registry on 17 September                        worker's rights' transferred to the transferee in any
1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Peacock AG                    event include the advantages acquired by him while
against Hauptzollamt Paderborn on the following                             employed by the transferor, such as length of service
question:                                                                   if, under the system of collective bargaining
                                                                            applicable in the transferee's business, length of
                                                                            service entails the acquisition of rights of a financial
Is Note 5B to Chapter 84 of the combined nomenclature                       nature?
in the version which was in force from 1990 to 1995 to be
interpreted as meaning that the transmission of data using
                                                                     (1) OJ L 61, 5.3.1977, p. 26.
the network cards (1) described in more detail in the
grounds of this order is not to be regarded as a specific
function but as data processing, so that the network cards
are to be classified under heading 8473?
(1) In particular Microdyne Corporation's NE2000 and NE5500
    Ethernet Network Adapter Cards.                                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal da
                                                                     Comarca SetuÂbal, Third Civil Chamber, by order of that
                                                                     court of 15 July 1998 in the case of Vitor Manuel Mendes
                                                                     Ferreira and Maria Clara Delgado Correia Ferreira, his
                                                                     spouse, against Companhia de Seguros Mundial ConfiancËa
                                                                                S.A.
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura                                          (Case C-348/98)
Circondariale, Pinerolo (Italy), by order of that court of
3 September 1998 in the case of Renato Collino and                                            (98/C 358/14)
        Luisella Chiappero against Telecom Italia SpA
                       (Case C-343/98)
                                                                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                         (98/C 358/13)                               European Communities by order of the Tribunal da
                                                                     Comarca (District Court), SetuÂbal, Third Civil Chamber,
                                                                     of 15 July 1998, received at the Court Registry on
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of                   24 September 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
the European Communities by order of the Pretura                     Vitor Manuel Mendes Ferreira and Maria Clara Delgado
 ---pagebreak--- 21.11.98              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 358/7
Correia Ferreira, his spouse, against Companhia de                 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Diikitiko
Seguros Mundial ConfiancËa S.A. on the following                   Protodikio, Piraeus (Fourth Chamber (Three Judges)), by
questions:                                                         judgment of that court of 29 May 1998 in the case of
                                                                           Henkel Hellas ABEE against the Greek State
1. Does Article 3 of Council Directive 84/5/EEC (1)                                       (Case C-350/98)
    require compulsory insurance against civil liability in
    respect of the use of motor vehicles to cover injury                                   (98/C 358/15)
    caused to the members of the family of the insured
    person or of the driver of the vehicle even where those
    persons are carried free of charge or where only strict
                                                                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    civil liability, without negligence, arises, or may the
                                                                   European Communities by judgment of the Diikitiko
    Member State exclude the award of any compensation
                                                                   Protodikio (Administrative Court of First Instance),
    in such cases?
                                                                   Piraeus (Fourth Chamber (Three Judges)), of 29 May
                                                                   1998, received at the Court Registry on 24 September
2. Are the minimum capital sums insured laid down in               1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Henkel
    Article 1(2) of Directive 84/5/EEC also applicable to          Hellas ABEE against the Greek State on the following
    situations where strict civil liability, without               questions:
    negligence, arises or may the Member State legislate to
    the effect that, where there is no negligence on the
    part of the driver of the vehicle causing the accident,
                                                                   1. Is the duty charged by the Greek state pursuant to
    the maximum limits of the compensation payable are
                                                                       Article 42(6) of Law 2065/1992 equivalent to the
    to be lower than those limits?
                                                                       capital duty laid down by Article 4 of Council
                                                                       Directive 66/335/EEC (1) as subsequently amended,
3. Must the national court interpret its domestic law so               taking into account that on 1 July 1984 no such
    as to render it compatible with the provisions of a                capital duty existed in Greece?
    directive where the directive has been defectively
    transposed or where pre-existing provisons of
    domestic law remain in force?                                  2. If so, taking account of Greece's special fiscal
                                                                       situation, may the rate of that duty exceed the rate of
4. Is that the case even where that interpretation is                  1 % in the abovementioned directive?
    contrary to the construction generally put on the
    meaning and scope of the provisions of its domestic            (1) OJ L 249, 3.10.1969, p. 25.
    law, or even where that interpretation is consonant
    with the intentions of the national legislature, which
    has nevertheless not succeeded in expressing them in
    the text of the law?
5. And must the national court adopt that interpretation
    conforming to the provisions of the Community
                                                                   Appeal brought on 24 September 1998 by Laboratories
    directive even in a dispute involving only private
                                                                   Pharmaceutiques Bergaderm SA and Jean-Jacques Goupil
    persons?
                                                                   against the judgment delivered on 16 July 1998 by the
                                                                   Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
6. Must the national court adopt an interpretation of its          European Communities in Case T-199/96 between
    domestic law conforming to the provisions of Article 1         Laboratories Pharmaceutiques Bergaderm SA and Jean-
    of Council Directive 90/232/EEC (2) even in the case of        Jacques Goupil and the Commission of the European
    an accident which occurred before the end of the                                        Communities
    period allowed for the Member State to transpose that
                                                                                (Case C-352/98 P)
    provision into its domestic law?
                                                                                (98/C 358/16)
7. If it should be concluded that it is not possible to
    interpret domestic law so as to render it consonant
    with the provisions of a directive, does the primacy of
                                                                   An appeal against the judgment delivered on 16 July 1998
    Community law mean that the national court must
                                                                   by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
    exclude the application of domestic provisions which
                                                                   European Communities in Case T-199/96 between
    are incompatible with the directive, even in the case of
                                                                   Laboratories Pharmaceutiques Bergaderm SA and Jean-
    a dispute involving only private persons?
                                                                   Jacques Goupil and the Commission of the European
                                                                   Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
(1) OJ L 8, 11.1.1984, p. 17.                                      the European Communities on 24 September 1998 by
(2) OJ L 129, 19.5.1990, p. 33.                                    Laboratories Pharmaceutiques Bergaderm SA and Jean-
                                                                   Jacques Goupil, represented by Jean-Pierre Spitzer and
                                                                   Yves-Marie Moray, of the Paris Bar.


title: Case T-187/16: Action brought on 22 April 2016 – Anton Riemerschmid Weinbrennerei und Likörfabrik v EUIPO – Viña y Bodega Botalcura (LITU)

text:
               4.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/37

         Action brought on 22 April 2016 – Anton Riemerschmid Weinbrennerei und Likörfabrik v EUIPO – Viña y Bodega Botalcura (LITU)
   (Case T-187/16)
   (2016/C 243/40)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Anton Riemerschmid Weinbrennerei und Likörfabrik GmbH & Co. KG (Erding, Germany) (represented by: P. Koch Moreno, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Viña y Bodega Botalcura SA (Las Condes, Chile)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘LITU’ – Application for registration No 12 684 833

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 February 2016 in Case R 719/2015-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               deliver a judgment accepting the action, fully annulling the contested decision;

               —

               order to dismiss the European Union Trademark Application for the word mark LITU in relation to all the goods;

               —

               order that the Defendant and/or the other party to the proceedings should bear the fees and costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-337/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Szczecinie (Poland) lodged on 7 June 2017 — Feniks Sp. z o.o. v Azteca Products & Services SL

text:
               11.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/14

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Szczecinie (Poland) lodged on 7 June 2017 — Feniks Sp. z o.o. v Azteca Products & Services SL
   (Case C-337/17)
   (2017/C 300/17)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Sąd Okręgowy w Szczecinie

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Feniks Sp. z o.o., established in Szczecin

      Defendant: Azteca Products & Services SL, established in Alcora

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does a case brought against a buyer established in one Member State, seeking a declaration that a contract for the sale of immovable property situated in the territory of another Member State, which was concluded and performed in its entirety in the territory of another Member State, is ineffective on the ground of detriment to the seller’s creditors, constitute a ‘matter relating to a contract’ within the meaning of Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters?

               2.

               Must the above question be answered applying the principle of acte éclairé with reference to the judgment of the Court of Justice in Handte v Traitements mécano-chimiques des surfaces SA, C-26/91, EU:C:1992:268, despite the fact that it concerned the liability for defects in goods of a manufacturer who could not foresee to whom the goods would subsequently be sold, and thus who would be able to bring claims against him, whereas the present action against a buyer ‘seeking a declaration that a contract for the sale of immovable property is ineffective’ on the ground of detriment to the seller’s creditors, requires, in order to be effective, knowledge on the part of the buyer that the legal act (contract of sale) was done with detriment to creditors, and thus the buyer must anticipate that such an action may be brought by a personal creditor of the seller?

      (1)  OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1.


title: Case T-396/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  22 November 2005  — Vanhellemont v Commission (Officials — Staff committee — Elections for the Brussels local staff committee — Counting of votes cast — Action for annulment — Action for damages)

text:
               28.1.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/11

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 22 November 2005 — Vanhellemont v Commission
   (Case T-396/03) (1)

   (Officials - Staff committee - Elections for the Brussels local staff committee - Counting of votes cast - Action for annulment - Action for damages)
   (2006/C 22/22)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Joseph Vanhellemont (Merchtem, Belgium) (represented by: L. Vogel, lawyer)

      Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and H. Kraemer, Agents)
   Application for
   First, annulment of the decision of the Commission of 26 August 2003 rejecting the complaint made by the applicant seeking the organisation of a recount of votes cast in the elections of December 2002 for the Brussels local staff committee of the Commission, and also, as far as necessary, the annulment of the decisions against which that complaint was directed and, second, a request for damages
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1)

               Annuls the decision of the Commission not to intervene following the applicant's challenges of 23 December 2002 seeking the organisation of a further recount of the votes cast in the elections of December 2002 for the Brussels local staff committee;

               2)

               Rejects the remainder of the application;

               3)

               Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 47, 21.2.2004.


C 304/20                 EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                     13.12.2003
Action brought on 31 October 2003 by the Commission                           from the register of Case C-28/02: Commission of the
        of the European Communities against Ireland                           European Communities v Kingdom of Spain.
                          (Case C-460/03)
                                                                              (1) OJ C 68 of 16.3.2002.
                          (2003/C 304/29)
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 31 October 2003 by
the Commission of the European Communities, represented                              Removal from the register of Case C-162/02 (1)
by X. Lewis and M. Konstantinidis, acting as agents, with an
address for service in Luxembourg.                                                                     (2003/C 304/32)
The Applicant claims that the Court should:
1)    declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations                  By order of 14 August 2003 the President of the Court of
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
      Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of                  from the register of Case C-162/02: Commission of the
      the Council of 18 September 2000 on end-of life                         European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
      vehicles (1), Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      the directive and in particular its Article 10(1) and under             (1) OJ C 156 of 29.6.2002.
      the Treaty establishing the European Community;
2)    order Ireland to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-231/02 (1)
The period within which the directive had to be transposed
expired on 21 April 2002.                                                                              (2003/C 304/33)
(1) OJ L 269, 21.10.2000, p. 34.
                                                                              By order of 18 September 2003 the President of the Court of
                                                                              Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                              from the register of Case C-231/02 (Reference for a preliminary
                                                                              ruling by the Bundesvergabeamt): Neumayer Bau Ges.m.b.H v
                                                                              Abwasserverband Grossraum Bruck an der Leitha.
       Removal from the register of Case C-379/01 (1)
                          (2003/C 304/30)                                     (1) OJ C 219 of 14.9.2002.
By order of 16 September 2003 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-379/01 (Reference for a preliminary
ruling by the Bundesvergabeamt): Ortner GmbH v Allgemeine                            Removal from the register of Case C-380/02 (1)
Unfallversicherungsanstalt.
                                                                                (2003/C 304/34)
(1) OJ C 3 of 5.1.2002.
                                                                              By order of 18 September 2003 the President of the Court of
                                                                              Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                              from the register of Case C-380/02 (Reference for a preliminary
        Removal from the register of Case C-28/02 (1)                         ruling by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes
                                                                              Vorarlberg): Fantom Gebäudereinigung Gesellschaft GmbH v
                          (2003/C 304/31)                                     Dornbirn.
                                                                              (1) OJ C 7 of 11.1.2003.
By order of 1st August 2003 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal


title: Case T-683/16: Action brought on 21 September 2016 — KUKA Systems v EUIPO (MATRIX BODY SHOP)

text:
               7.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 410/29

         Action brought on 21 September 2016 — KUKA Systems v EUIPO (MATRIX BODY SHOP)
   (Case T-683/16)
   (2016/C 410/41)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: KUKA Systems GmbH (Augsburg, Germany) (represented by: B. Maneth and C. Huch-Hallwachs, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘MATRIX BODY SHOP’ — Application No 14 182 661

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 July 2016 in Case R 2503/2015-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case C-573/08: Action brought on 22 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

text:
               7.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/14

         Action brought on 22 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-573/08)
   (2009/C 55/23)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Recchia, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: Italian Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13 and 18 of Directive 79/409/EEC:

                           —

                           by failing to transpose Directive 79/409/EEC (1) into Italian law in a manner which is wholly in compliance with that directive;

                           —

                           by failing to transpose Article 9 of Directive 79/409/EEC into Italian law in a manner which ensures that the derogations adopted by the competent Italian authorities comply with the conditions and requirements laid down in that provision;

               —

               Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Commission argues that the Italian legislation does not fully transpose Directive 79/409/EEC into Italian law in a manner that is in compliance with that directive:

      Article 2: not transposed;

      Article 3: not transposed in compliance with the directive, owing to the failure to transpose Article 2;

      Article 4(4): not transposed;

      Article 5: non-transposition of the prohibition of the deliberate destruction of nests and eggs, or of deliberate damage thereto, and of the prohibition of the deliberate disturbance of the species of bird protected by the directive;

      Article 6: non-transposition of the prohibition on transport for sale;

      Article 7(4): incomplete transposition (the way in which the hunting seasons have been fixed does not ensure that hunting is prohibited during the rearing season and the various stages of reproduction; nor, in particular, as regards migratory species, does it ensure that hunting is prohibited during the period of reproduction or during the return to the rearing grounds; moreover, the obligation to send the Commission all relevant information on the practical application of the hunting legislation has not been transposed);

      Article 9: not transposed at State level in compliance with the directive (the reviews of the legitimacy of the derogations are ineffective and belated); incorrect transposition and implementation at regional level (Abruzzo, Lazio, Toscana, Lombardia, Emilia Romagna, Marche, Calabria and Puglia);

      Article 10(2): incomplete transposition (failure to transpose the obligation to send the Commission the information required for the coordination of the research and work for the protection, management and use of the population of the species of bird protected by the directive);

      Article 11: incomplete transposition (failure to transpose the obligation to consult the Commission with respect to the introduction of exotic species);

      Article 13: not transposed;

      Article 18(2): failure on the part of the Italian authorities to communicate the texts setting out the provisions of regional law on hunting for the regions of Lazio, Lombardia, Toscana and Puglia.

      (1)  Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1).


title: Case C-173/16: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal — Ireland) — M. H. v M. H. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — No reasonable doubt — Jurisdiction in matrimonial matters — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Article 16(1)(a) — Determination of the time when a court is seised — Concept of ‘the time when the document instituting the proceedings or an equivalent document is lodged with the court’)

text:
               19.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 343/18

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal — Ireland) — M. H. v M. H.
   (Case C-173/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - No reasonable doubt - Jurisdiction in matrimonial matters - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Article 16(1)(a) - Determination of the time when a court is seised - Concept of ‘the time when the document instituting the proceedings or an equivalent document is lodged with the court’))
   (2016/C 343/28)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Court of Appeal

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: M. H.

      Defendant: M. H.

      Operative part of the order

   Article 16(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, must be interpreted to the effect that the ‘time when the document instituting the proceedings or an equivalent document is lodged with the court’, within the meaning of that provision, is the time when that document is lodged with the court concerned, even if under national law lodging that document does not of itself immediately initiate proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 211, 13.6.2016.


title: Action brought on 20 September 1998 by De Haan Beheer BV against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-150/98)

text:
5.12.98              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 378/19
    Action brought on 20 September 1998 by De Haan                  On 24 April 1998 the Netherlands brought an action
    Beheer BV against the Commission of the European                contesting that decision (Case C-157/98). The applicant
                        Communities                                 endorses the arguments advanced by the Netherlands
                      (Case T-150/98)                               Government and adopts those arguments as its own.
                       (98/C 378/35)                                In particular, the applicant advances the following pleas in
                                                                    law:
              (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                    1. First, infringement of Article 13(1) of Regulation
                                                                         (EEC) No 1430/79, alternatively of Article 239(2) of
An action against the Commission of the European                         the Community Customs Code:
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 20 September                     The Netherlands customs investigation authorities
1998 by De Haan Beheer BV, established at Alblasserdam                   knew of the fraud in advance, and were aware of it by
(Netherlands), represented by C. F. W. A. Hamm, of the                   the time that the first consignment had been
Dordrecht Bar, in his capacity as administrator in the                   despatched. However, they took no action in relation
insolvency of De Haan Beheer BV.                                         to it, with the result that the transport operations were
                                                                         able to proceed and the applicant, without being
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              aware of the fraud, incurred an unnecessarily
                                                                         substantial customs debt.
Ð annul Decision REM 15/97 of the Commission of                          The applicant complains, with reference to
    18 February 1998;                                                    paragraph 132 of the Judgment of the Court of First
                                                                         Instance of 19 February 1998 in Case T-42/96
                                                                         (Eyckeler & Malt v. Commission), that the
Ð rule that the present case concerns special
    circumstances justifying a refund in accordance with                 Commission has failed to comply with the principle of
                                                                         Community law requiring the exercise of due care, as
    Article 13 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1430/
    79 (1);                                                              regards the recognition of special circumstances within
                                                                         the meaning of Article 13 of Regulation (EEC)
                                                                         No 1430/79.
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                    2. Breach of the obligation to provide a statement of
                                                                         reasons:
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                         The Commission has failed to provide any reasons for
In 1993 the applicant, as an authorised consignor, issued                its assertion that there is insufficient proof of the
internal Community transit documents for the                             involvement of a Belgian customs official in the fraud,
transportation of cigarettes, the Office of destination being            and that, for that reason, no special situation can be
in Antwerp.                                                              said to exist.
                                                                    (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 of 2 July 1979 on the
However, those goods were not presented at the Office of                repayment or remission of import or export duties (OJ L 175,
destination; the transport documents bore false stamps                  12.7.1979, p. 1).
and signatures. On account of the non-presentation of the
goods, a customs debt arose.
The applicant declared that it had acted in good faith and
that it had been the victim of fraudulent acts committed
by organised criminal gangs. It applied for remission of            Action brought on 29 September 1998 by SocieÂteÂ
the import duties on the basis of Article 13(1) of                  Internationale de Diffusion et d'EÂdition (SIDE) against
Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79, which provides for such                        the Commission of the European Communities
remission where there are special circumstances in which                                    (Case T-155/98)
no negligence or deception may be attributed to the
                                                                                (98/C 378/36)
person concerned.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
The Commission rejected that application by decision of
18 February 1998, on the grounds that the declarant is              An action against the Commission of the European
responsible for ensuring that a Community transit                   Communities was brought before the Court of First
operation proceeds in the correct manner, that fraudulent           Instance of the European Communities on 29 September
acts by third parties constitute a normal commercial risk,          1998 by SocieÂteÂ Internationale de Diffusion et d'EÂdition
that the declarant is responsible for the acts of any               (SIDE), established in Bagneux (France), represented by
member of his staff who is involved in fraud, and that it           Nicole Coutrelis, of the Paris Bar, with an address for
had not beeen shown that any Belgian customs official               service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Loesch,
was involved.                                                       11 Rue Goethe.


title: Case C-5/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 12 January 2015 — AK (*) v Achmea Schadeverzekeringen NV, Stichting Achmea Rechtsbijstand

text:
                  30.3.2015

                  EN

                  Official Journal of the European Union

                  C 107/19

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 12 January 2015 —  AK (*1) v Achmea Schadeverzekeringen NV, Stichting Achmea Rechtsbijstand
         (Case C-5/15)
         (2015/C 107/27)
         Language of the case: Dutch

            Referring court

         Gerechtshof Amsterdam

            Parties to the main proceedings

            Applicant: AK (*1)

            Defendants: Achmea Schadeverzekeringen NV, Stichting Achmea Rechtsbijstand

            Question referred

         Must the term ‘inquiry or proceedings’ in Article 4(1)(a) of Council Directive 87/344/EEC (1) of 22 June 1987 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to legal expenses insurance be interpreted as also covering the objection stage before the CIZ [Netherlands Medical Care Assessment Centre], in which any person who has received a negative decision from the CIZ on a request for an assessment may lodge a notice of objection with the CIZ, requesting that the decision be reviewed?

            (*1)  Information erased or replaced within the framework of protection of personal data and/or confidentiality.

            (1)  OJ 1987 L 185, p. 77.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden by judgment of that court of 3 November 1995 in the case of Frits Loendersloot v. George Ballantine & Son Ltd and Others (Case C-349/95)

text:
30 . 12 . 95                EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 351 /9
         prejudice to Article 378 of the Act of Accession ( ) or                 ( a ) is the specific object of the rights attaching to a
         any other Community legislation ?                                               trade-mark to be regarded as including the power
                                                                                conferred on the proprietor of a trade-mark under
(') Charges on milk products at the marketing stage, whether of                          national law to oppose , with regard to alcoholic drinks
       domestic origin or imported , intended for public consumption ,                   manufactured by him, the removal by a third party of
        levied by Iroma .                                                                labels affixed by the proprietor on bottles and on the
( 2 ) Council Directive 77/388/EEC, OJ No L 145 , p . 1 .                                packaging containing them, and bearing his mark, after
n oi No L 302 , 15 . 11 . 1985 , p . 23 .                                                the drinks have been placed by him on the Community
                                                                                market in that packaging, and the subsequent
                                                                                re-application of those labels by that third party or their
                                                                                replacement by similar labels, without thereby in some
                                                                                way damaging the original condition of the product ?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supremo Tribunal                       ( b ) In so far as the labels are replaced by other similar
Administrativo ( Second Chamber — Fiscal Matters ) by                                    labels, is the position different where the third party
judgment of that court of 19 October 1995 in the case of                                 omits the indication ' pure ' appearing on the original
Fabrica de Queijo Eru Portuguesa Lda. against Ministerio                                 labels and/or, as the case may be, replaces the
                       Publico and Fazenda Publica                                       importer's name with another name ?
                              ( Case C-348/95 )
                                  ( 95/C 351 /14 )                                ( c ) If question ( a ) falls to be answered in the affirmative ,
                                                                                but the proprietor of the trade-mark avails himself of
                                                                                the power referred to in that question in order to
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                  prevent the third party from removing the
 European Communities by judgment of the Supremo                                          identification marks which the trade-mark proprietor
Tribunal Administrativo ( Supreme Administrative Court )                                 has affixed on or underneath the labels in order to
 ( Second Chamber — Fiscal Matters ) of 19 October 1995 ,                                enable the trade-mark proprietor to detect shortfalls
 which was received at the Court Registry on 13 November                                 within his sales organization and thus to combat
 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Fabrica de                                parallel trade in his products , must such an exercise of
 Queijo Eru Portuguesa Lda . against Ministerio Publico and                               the trade-mark right be regarded as a 'disguised
 Fazenda Publica on the following questions :                                             restriction on trade between Member States ' aimed at
                                                                                achieving an artificial compartmentalization of the
  1 . having regard to the facts deemed to have been proven in                            markets ?
         the present judgment and the applicable Community
          legislation , are the goods in question ( cheese ) (') to be             ( d ) To what extent is the answer to . question ( c ) affected
         classified under subheading 0406 90 1 1 of the Common                            where the trade-mark proprietor has affixed those
          Customs Tariff ( CCT ) nomenclature ( 2 )?                                      identification marks either pursuant to a legal
                                                                                obligation or voluntarily , but in any event with a view
 2 . If not, under which tariff heading should they be                                    to making a 'product recall ' possible and/or in order to
          classified ?                                                                    limit his product liability and/or to combat
                                                                                counterfeiting, or, as the case may be , solely in order to
  (') As described in footnote 2 of the information notice for Case                       combat parallel trade ?
         C- 164/95 , published in OJ No C 189 of 22 . 7. 1995 , p. 12 .
  ( 2 ) OJ No L 345 of 31 . 12 . 1994 .
                                                                                Action brought on 10 November 1995 by the Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
  Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der                                                    Luxembourg
  Nederlanden by judgment of that court of 3 November                                                       (Case C-350/95 )
   1995 in the case of Frits Loendersloot v. George Ballantine                                                ( 95/C 351 / 16 )
                           & Son Ltd and Others
                                ( Case C-349/95 )                                   An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
                                    ( 95/C 351 / 15 )                               brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                                Communities on 10 November 1995 by the Commission of
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                           the European Communities , represented by Dimitrios
   European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad der                            Gouloussis, Legal Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address
   Nederlanden ( Supreme Court of the Netherlands ) of                              for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de
   3 November 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry                       la Cruz, of the Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
   on 13 November 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case
   of Frits Loendersloot v. George Ballantine & Son Ltd on the                      The Commission of the European Communities claims that
   following questions :                                                            the Court should :


title: Case F-61/09: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 10 April 2014  — Strack v Commission

text:
               26.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 159/40

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 10 April 2014 — Strack v Commission
   (Case F-61/09) (1)

   2014/C 159/56
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 193, 15.8.2009, p. 36.


title: Case C-502/08: Action brought on 20 November 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               10.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/17

         Action brought on 20 November 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-502/08)
   (2009/C 6/28)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Dejmek and E. Adsera Ribera, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/60/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing or, in any event, by failing to notify them to the Commission, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 45 of that directive;

               —

               order Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposing Directive 2005/60/EC into national law expired on 15 December 2007.

      (1)  OJ 2005 L 309, p. 15.


title: Case T-160/09: Action brought on 20 April 2009 — Winzer Pharma v OHIM

text:
               18.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 167/13

         Action brought on 20 April 2009 — Winzer Pharma v OHIM
   (Case T-160/09)
   2009/C 167/27
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Dr. Winzer Pharma GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: S. Schneller, lawyer)

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

      Other party/parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Alcon Inc.

      Forms of orders sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 4 February 2009 in case R 147/2007-1 and uphold the opposition No B 809899;

               —

               Grant an oral procedure;

               —

               Order OHIM or, in the alternative, the intervener, to bear all the costs of the proceedings; and

               —

               In the alternative, remit the case to OHIM.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Alcon Cusì SA, who later transferred its rights to Alcon Inc.

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘OFTAL CUSI’ of goods in class 5 (Registration No 3 679 181)

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark ‘Opthal’ for goods in class 5 (Registration No 489 948)

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009), as there is a likelihood of confusion or at least a likelihood of association between the marks at issue.


title: Case C-178/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social n °1 de Córdoba (Spain) lodged on 17 April 2012 — Rafaela Rivas Montes v Instituto Municipal de Deportes de Córdoba (IMDECO)

text:
               14.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/3

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social no 1 de Córdoba (Spain) lodged on 17 April 2012 — Rafaela Rivas Montes v Instituto Municipal de Deportes de Córdoba (IMDECO)
   (Case C-178/12)
   2012/C 209/04
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de lo Social no 1 de Córdoba

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Rafaela Rivas Montes

      Defendant: Instituto Municipal de Deportes de Córdoba (IMDECO)

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is it consistent with the Community principle of equality (in the terms in which it has been defined by the Court of Justice) for a given public authority (here the IMDECO), for the purposes of calculating its employees’ length-of-service salary increments, to take into account solely the character of the legal relationship linking the authority and the employees, either of a public service or of a contractual kind, and consequently in the former case (civil servants), in accordance with the Ley estatal funcionarial vigente, for it to take into account without distinction all service, current and past, performed in any part of the public authorities in general (that is, in that particular public authority — IMDECO — or in any another type of public authority), while in contrast, in the latter case (staff engaged under employment contracts), in accordance with the Ley estatal laboral vigente and the case law interpreting it, it takes into account only the service previously provided to that particular public authority (IMDECO), provided however that there is no temporary break in the chain of contracts covering the services which would suggest that the essential unity of the legal-employment relationship had been broken, insofar as, in such a case, the days worked immediately before such a break are disregarded?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question is in the negative (that is, if the Court of Justice considers that such an action carried out by a public authority — in this case IMDECO — infringes the Community principle of equality), should the restoration of the principle of equality be carried out through the application of the Ley estatal funcionarial to staff engaged under employment contracts?