title: Judgment of the Court of 6 December 2001 in Case C-353/99 P: Council of the European Union v Heidi Hautala and Others (Appeal — Public right of access to Council documents — Council Decision 93/731/EC — Exceptions to access to documents — Protection of the public interest concerning international relations — Partial access)

text:
C 84/8                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           6.4.2002
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                      of 6 December 2001                                                       of 29 November 2001
in Case C-353/99 P: Council of the European Union v                      in Case C-366/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling
                  Heidi Hautala and Others (1)                           from the Conseil d’État): Joseph Griesmar v Ministre de
                                                                         l’Économie, des Finances et de l’Industrie and Ministre de
                                                                         la Fonction publique, de la Réforme de l’État et de la
(Appeal — Public right of access to Council documents —                                          Décentralisation (1)
Council Decision 93/731/EC — Exceptions to access to
documents — Protection of the public interest concerning
           international relations — Partial access)
                                                                         (Social policy — Equal treatment for men and women —
                                                                         Applicability of Article 119 of the EC Treaty (Articles 117
                                                                         to 120 of the EC Treaty have been replaced by Articles
                         (2002/C 84/13)
                                                                         136 EC to 143 EC) or Directive 79/7/EEC — French civil
                                                                         and military retirement pension scheme — Service credit
                                                                         for children awarded to female civil servants — Whether
                   (Language of the case: English)                       permissible in the light of Article 6(3) of the Agreement on
                                                                              Social Policy or the provisions of Directive 79/7/EEC)
                                                                                (2002/C 84/14)
In Case C-353/99 P: Council of the European Union (Agents:
J. Aussant, G. Maganza and M. Bauer), supported by Kingdom
of Spain (Agent: R. Silva de Lapuerta) — appeal against the
judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European                                      (Language of the case: French)
Communities (First Chamber) of 19 July 1999 in Case T-14/98
Hautala v Council [1999] ECR II-2489, seeking to have that
judgment set aside, the other parties to the proceedings being:          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Heidi Hautala, Member of the European Parliament (Lawyers:                                  in the European Court Reports)
O.W. Brouwer and T. Janssens), supported by Kingdom of
Denmark (Agent: J. Molde), and by United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent: J.E. Collins and H. Davies),
Republic of Finland, (Agents: first H. Rotkirch and then
T. Pynnä), Kingdom of Sweden (Agent: A. Kruse) and French
Republic — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias,             In Case C-366/99: reference to the Court under Article 234
President, P. Jann, F. Macken, N. Colneric and S. von Bahr               EC from the Conseil d’État (Council of State) (France) for a
(Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La               preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet, V. Skouris, J.N. Cunha           court between Joseph Griesmar and Ministre de l’Économie,
Rodrigues (Rapporteur) and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges;                    des Finances et de l’Industrie and Ministre de la Fonction
P. Léger, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Head of                 publique, de la Réforme de l’État et de la Décentralisation —
Division, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 Decem-            on the interpretation of Article 119 of the EC Treaty
ber 2001, in which it:                                                   (Articles 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty have been replaced by
                                                                         Articles 136 EC to 143 EC), Article 6(3) of the Agreement on
                                                                         Social Policy (OJ 1992 C 191, p. 91) and Council Directive
1.    Dismisses the appeal;                                              79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implemen-
                                                                         tation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women
                                                                         in matters of social security (OJ 1979 L 6, p. 24) — the Court,
2.    Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs;         composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, P. Jann,
                                                                         F. Macken, N. Colneric and S. von Bahr (Presidents of
                                                                         Chambers), A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet, L. Sevón, M. Wathe-
3.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain, the Kingdom of Denmark, the
                                                                         let, V. Skouris (Rapporteur) and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges;
      United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the
                                                                         S. Alber, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the
      Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden to bear their
                                                                         Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 November 2001, in
      own costs.
                                                                         which it has ruled:
(1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999.                                              Pensions provided under a scheme such as the French retirement
                                                                         scheme for civil servants fall within the scope of Article 119 of the
                                                                         EC Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty have been replaced
                                                                         by Articles 136 EC to 143 EC).


title: Case T-518/13: Judgment of the General Court of 5 July 2016 — Future Enterprises v EUIPO — McDonald’s International Property (MACCOFFEE) (European Union trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — European Union word mark MACCOFFEE — Earlier European Union word mark McDONALD’S — Article 53(1)(a) and Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Family of marks — Taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark — Declaration of invalidity)

text:
               22.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/26

         Judgment of the General Court of 5 July 2016 — Future Enterprises v EUIPO — McDonald’s International Property (MACCOFFEE)
   (Case T-518/13) (1)

   ((European Union trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - European Union word mark MACCOFFEE - Earlier European Union word mark McDONALD’S - Article 53(1)(a) and Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Family of marks - Taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark - Declaration of invalidity))
   (2016/C 305/35)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Future Enterprises Pte Ltd (Singapore, Singapore) (represented initially by B. Hitchens, J. Olsen, R. Sharma, M. Henshall, Solicitors, and R. Tritton, Barrister, and subsequently by B. Hitchens, J. Olsen, R. Tritton and E. Hughes-Jones, Solicitors)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: L. Rampini, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: McDonald’s International Property Co. Ltd (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: C. Eckhartt, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 June 2013 (Case R 1178/2012-1) relating to cancellation proceedings between McDonald’s International Property Co. and Future Enterprises.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Future Enterprises Pte Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 352, 30.11.2013.


title: Case C-372/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundessozialgericht by order of that Court of 15 August 2002 in the case of Roberto Adanez-Vega against Bundesanstalt für Arbeit

text:
11.1.2003               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 7/7
Tilmann Klett and Bundesministerin für Bildung, Wissenschaft                of the European Communities (Fifth Chamber, Extended
und Kultur — on the interpretation of Article 12 EC, Article 19             Composition) of 7 June 2001 in Case T-187/99 Agrana Zucker
EC, Article 19b of Council Directive 78/686/EEC of 25 July                  und Stärke v Commission [2001] ECR II-1587, seeking to
1978 concerning the mutual recognition of diplomas, certifi-                have that judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings
cates and other evidence of the formal qualifications of                    being: Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
practitioners of dentistry, including measures to facilitate the            M. Erhart and D. Triantafyllou) — the Court (Third Chamber),
effective exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to             composed of J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber,
provide services (OJ 1978 L 233, p. 1), as amended by the Act               F. Macken and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), Judges:
concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of                   F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made
Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden                  an order on 5 November 2002, the operative part of which is
and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European                   as follows:
Union is founded (OJ 1994 C 241, p. 21 and OJ 1995 L 1,
p. 1), and Articles 3 and 9 of Council Directive 93/16/EEC of
5 April 1993 to facilitate the free movement of doctors and                 1.    The appeal is dismissed;
the mutual recognition of their diplomas, certificates and other
evidence of formal qualifications (OJ 1993 L 165, p. 1), as                 2.    Agrana Zucker and Stärke AG shall pay the costs.
amended by that act of accession — the Court (Fourth
Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermanns (Rapporteur),
President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward and S. von Bahr,
Judges: A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has              (1 ) OJ No C 303, 27.10.01.
made an order on 5 November 2002, the operative part of
which is as follows:
Article 19b of Council Directive 78/686/EEC of 25 July 1978
concerning the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other
evidence of the formal qualifications of practitioners of dentistry,
including measures to facilitate the effective exercise of the right of
establishment and freedom to provide services, as amended by the Act
concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Austria, the
Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundessozial-
to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded, must be             gericht by order of that Court of 15 August 2002 in the
interpreted as meaning that a person whose qualification in general         case of Roberto Adanez-Vega against Bundesanstalt für
medical practice has not been awarded by an Austrian university                                            Arbeit
cannot be admitted to the specialist training in dentistry given in that
Member State.
                                                                                (Case C-372/02)
( 1) OJ No C 227, 11.8.01.
                                                                                (2003/C 7/13)
                    ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                         (Third Chamber)                                    European Communities by order of the Bundessozialgericht
                                                                            (Federal Social Court) of 15 August 2002, received at the
                       of 5 November 2002                                   Court Registry on 16 October 2002, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                            in the case of Roberto Adanez-Vega against Bundesanstalt für
    in Case C-321/01 P: Agrana Zucker und Stärke AG (1)                     Arbeit on the following questions:
(Appeal — State aid — Act of Accession of the Republic of                   1.    Is a person who claims benefits under German unemploy-
Austria — Joint Declaration No 31 annexed to the Final Act                        ment insurance more than two months after completing
     of the Treaty of Accession of the Republic of Austria)                       his compulsory national service in Spain subject to
                           (2003/C 7/12)
                                                                                (a)   Spanish legislation under Article 13(2)(e) of Council
                   (Language of the case: German)                                       Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 (1)
                                                                                on the application of social security schemes to
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                  employed persons, to self-employed persons and
                   in the European Court Reports)                                       to members of their families moving within the
                                                                                Community, as amended and updated by Council
                                                                                Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983 (2),
In Case C-321/01 P: Agrana Zucker und Stärke AG, established                            as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2195/
in Vienna (Austria) (Lawyers: W. Barfuß and H. Wollmann) —                              91 of 25 June 1991 (3) — hereinafter, ‘Regulation
Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance                              1408/71’ — or
 ---pagebreak--- C 7/8                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      11.1.2003
     (b) German legislation under Article 13(2)(f) of Regu-                          bb) If the answer to Question 3(c)(aa) is affirmative:
           lation 1408/71?
                                                                                does the first sentence of Article 71(1)(b)(ii) of
                                                                                Regulation 1408/71 also mean that the last
2.   If the answer to Question 1(a) is affirmative:
                                                                                employment completed in the territory of a
                                                                                Member State other than the competent State
     (a)   does compulsory national service undertaken in                                  is to be taken into account for the purposes of
           Spain constitute ‘last employment in the territory of                           benefits to unemployed persons as if it had
           a Member State other than the competent State’                                  been completed in the State of residence,
           within the meaning of Article 71(1) of Regulation                               without regard to the requirements stated in
           1408/71?                                                                        Article 67 of Regulation 1408/71? (as per
                                                                                Question 2(b)).
     (b) If the answer to Question 2(a) is affirmative:
                                                                         4.    If the period of Spanish compulsory national service
           does the first sentence of Article 71(1)(b)(ii) of
                                                                               cannot be taken into account under Articles 71 or 67 of
           Regulation 1408/71 also mean that the last employ-                  Regulation 1408/71 for the purposes of the claimant’s
           ment completed in the territory of a Member State
                                                                               entitlement to benefit under German unemployment
           other than the competent State is to be taken into
                                                                               insurance, is there any such entitlement under the
           account for the purposes of benefits to unemployed
                                                                               principle of equality of treatment in Article 3 of Regu-
           persons as if it had been completed in the State of
                                                                               lation 1408/71 or under any other general provisions of
           residence, without regard to the requirements stated                European law?
           in Article 67 of Regulation 1408/71?
     c)    If the answer to Question 2(b) is negative:                   (1 ) OJ L 149 of 05.07.1971, p. 2.
                                                                         (2 ) OJ L 230 of 22.08.1983, p. 6.
           in what circumstances is a period of national                 (3 ) OJ L 206 of 29.07.1991, p. 2.
           service that, under national (Spanish) law, does not
           constitute a period of insurance for unemployment
           insurance purposes or is not treated as such, to be
           considered a period of employment completed as
           an employed person under the legislation of another
           Member State in accordance with Article 67(1) of
           Regulation 1408/71?
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster
3.   If the answer to Question 1(b) is affirmative:                      Gerichtshof (Austria) by order of that Court of 17 Septem-
                                                                         ber 2002 in the appeal between Sakir Öztürk and Pen-
     a)    has a person whose last period of insurance in                            sionsversicherungsanstalt der Arbeiter
           Germany came to an end more than one year
           previously, after which he carried out compulsory
           national service in Spain for nine months, ‘com-                                        (Case C-373/02)
           pleted lastly’ periods of insurance under German law
           within the meaning of Article 67(3) of Regulation                                         (2003/C 7/14)
           1408/71
     b)    If the answer to Question 3(a) is affirmative:
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
           in what circumstances is a period of national                 European Communities by order of the Oberster Gerichtshof
           service that, under national (Spanish) law, does not          (Austria) (Supreme Court) of 17 September 2002, received at
           constitute a period of insurance for unemployment             the Court Registry on 17 October 2002, for a preliminary
           insurance purposes or is not treated as such, to be           ruling in the appeal between Sakir Öztürk and Pensionsversich-
           considered a period of employment completed as                erungsanstalt der Arbeiter on the following questions:
           an employed person under the legislation of another
           Member State in accordance with Article 67(1) of
                                                                         1.    Is the law concerning the association between the Euro-
           Regulation 1408/71? (as per Question 2(c)).
                                                                               pean Economic Community and Turkey (in particular
                                                                               Article 9 of the Agreement establishing an Association
     c)    If Article 67(1) of Regulation 1408/71 should not                   between the European Economic Community and Turkey
           apply to the claimant (Questions 3(a) and (b)):                     of 12 September 1963) to be interpreted as precluding a
                                                                               rule of a Member State which requires inter alia, as a
           aa) does compulsory national service undertaken                     condition of entitlement to an early old-age pension in
                 in Spain constitute ‘last employment in the                   the event of unemployment, that the worker concerned
                 territory of a Member State other than the                    must have drawn a cash benefit on account of his
                 competent State’ within the meaning of                        unemployment from the unemployment insurance
                 Article 71(1) of Regulation 1408/71? (as per                  scheme of that Member State within a certain period
                 Question 2(a)).                                               prior to the qualifying date?


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 19 November 1998 in Case C-235/97: French Republic v. Commission of the European Communities (EAGGF - Clearance of accounts - 1993 financial year - Cereals - Export refunds in respect of processed cheese)

text:
23.1.1999            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 20/5
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (First Chamber)
                       (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 19 November 1998
                    of 19 November 1998
                                                                     in Case C-316/97 P: European Parliament v. Giuliana
in Case C-235/97: French Republic v. Commission of the                                          Gaspari (1)
                  European Communities (1)                           (Appeal Ð Officials Ð Sick leave Ð Medical certificate Ð
                                                                     Medical officer's examination Ð Findings at variance with
(EAGGF Ð Clearance of accounts Ð 1993 financial year                 the medical certificate Ð Obligation to state reasons Ð
Ð Cereals Ð Export refunds in respect of processed                                        Rights of the defence)
                            cheese)
                                                                                (1999/C 20/07)
                        (1999/C 20/06)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
               (Language of the case: French)                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                               published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                     In Case C-316/97 P: European Parliament (Agents:
                                                                     Manfred Peter and Antonio Caiola) Ð appeal against the
                                                                     judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       Communities in Case T-36/96 Gaspari v. Parliament
         published in the European Court Reports)                    [1997] ECR-SC II-595, seeking to have that judgment set
                                                                     aside, the other party to the proceedings being: Giuliana
                                                                     Gaspari, an official of the European Parliament,
                                                                     represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis, Thierry Demaseure,
                                                                     Ariane Tornel and FrancËoise Parmentier, of the Brussels
In Case C-235/97: French Republic (Agent: Kareen                     Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Rispal-Bellanger and FreÂdeÂric Pascal) v. Commission of             Offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange
the European Communities (Agent: Xavier Lewis) Ð                     Ð the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann,
Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision             President of the Chamber, L. Sevón and M. Wathelet
97/333/EC of 23 April 1997 on the clearance of the                   (Rapporteur),       Judges;    D.    Ruiz-Jarabo      Colomer,
accounts presented by the Member States in respect of the            Advocate-General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for
expenditure for 1993 of the Guarantee Section of the                 the Registrar, has given a judgment on 19 November
European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund                    1998, in which it:
(EAGGF) (OJ L 139, 30.5.1997, p. 30) Ð the Court (Fifth
Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the
Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann,                      1. Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance
D. A. O. Edward and M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), Judges;                     of 10 July 1997 in Case T-36/96 Gaspari v. Parliament
S. Alber, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given                to the extent to which it annulled, on the ground of
a judgment on 19 November 1998, in which it:                              breach of the obligation to state reasons and breach of
                                                                          the rights of the defence, the decision of 22 May 1995
                                                                          by which the Parliament treated Mrs Gaspari's
                                                                          absence on 5 May 1995 as irregular and deducted one
                                                                          day from her annual leave and the decision of 9 August
                                                                          1995 by which the Parliament confirmed that
1. Dismisses the application;
                                                                          decision;
                                                                     2. Refers the case back to the Court of First Instance for
                                                                          it to give judgment on the other pleas in law relied on
2. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.                           by Mrs Gaspari at first instance;
(1) OJ C 252, 16.8.1997.                                             3. Reserves the costs.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 331, 1.11.1997.


title: Case T-228/01: Action brought on 25 September 2001 by Territorio Histórico de Vizcaya — Excma. Diputación de Vizcaya, and the Comunidad autónoma del País Vasco — Gobierno Vasco against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 331/30                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     24.11.2001
The applicants claim that the Court should:                                    —     recovery of the aid cannot be imposed as an
                                                                                obligation when there are other options for restoring
                                                                                the status quo.
—     annul in its entirety the decision of the Commission
      which is contested in this action, in the alternative, annul
      Article 3 of that decision,
                                                                         (1) That tax credit, in the form now challenged by the contested
                                                                             decision, was provided for in respect of 1995, in the sixth
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                                 addendum to Norma Foral (Regional Law No 22/1994 of
                                                                             20 December 1994, and was extended until 1996 (Norma Foral
                                                                             No 33/1995) and 1997 (Norma Foral No 31/1996); it was
                                                                             amended by Norma Foral No 24/1996 relativa al Impuesto sobre
                                                                             Sociedades (Regional Law on Corporation Tax). Normas Forales
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              33/1997 and 36/1998 made similar provision in respect of
                                                                             1998 and 1999.
The applicants contest Commission Decision C(2001) 1759
final of 11 July 2001 declaring incompatible with the common
market the tax reductions arising from a number of regional
Laws (1) which provide for a tax credit of 45 % of the
investment in new fixed material assets in excess of ESP
2 500 million (EUR 15 025 303 ) made by undertakings in
the Territorio Histórico de Alava.                                      Action brought on 25 September 2001 by Territorio
                                                                         Histórico de Vizcaya — Excma. Diputación de Vizcaya,
                                                                         and the Comunidad autónoma del Paı́s Vasco — Gobierno
                                                                         Vasco against Commission of the European Communities
In support of their claims, the applicants put forward the
following three arguments:
                                                                                (Case T-228/01)
(a)   there is no ‘aid’ within the meaning of Article 87 of the
      EC Treaty. The applicants maintain that, contrary to what                                   (2001/C 331/49)
      is stated in the contested decision:
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
      —     the existence of a minimum quantitative threshold
            does not imply that there is any selectivity,
      —     the Commission has not given any substantiate its            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
            charge that the fiscal measure threatens to distort          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
            competition,                                                 European Communities on 25 September 2001 by the Territo-
                                                                         rio Histórico de Vizcaya — Excma. Diputación de Vizcaya, and
                                                                         the Comunidad autónoma del Paı́s Vasco — Gobierno Vasco,
      —     moreover, the decision is disproportionate, since it
                                                                         Vizcaya (Spain), represented by Ramón Falcón, lawyer.
            does not even exclude those sectors which are not
            open to competition nor that portion of alleged aid
            which could be regared as compatible;
                                                                         The applicants claim that the Court should:
(b) misuse of powers: the Commission is using its powers in
      the field of State aid in order to pursue an objective more        —     annul in its entirety the decision of the Commission
      appropriate to tax harmonisation.                                        which is contested in this action, in the alternative, annul
                                                                               Article 3 of that decision,
(c)   recovery of the aid, at least in the way required by the           —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
      contested decision, is excluded:
      —     the requirement to recover the aid is in breach of
            legitimate expectations,                                     Pleas in law and main arguments
      —     recovery should have been excluded in respect of
            those undertakings whos production is intended for           The applicants contest Commission Decision C(2001)
            the local market or for sectors in which there is no         1765 final of 11 July 2001 declaring incompatible with the
            competition, as well as in respect of that portion of        common market the tax reductions arising from the fourth
            the tax credit that does not exceed 25 % net grant           addendum to Norma Foral (Regional Law) No 7/1996 of
            equivalent (NGE),                                            26 December 1996, and the 10th addendum to Norma Foral
 ---pagebreak--- 24.11.2001             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 331/31
4/1998 of 2 December 1998, which provide for a tax credit               Action brought on 25 September 2001 by Territorio
of 45 % of the investment in new fixed material assets in               Histórico de Vizcaya — Excma. Diputación de Vizcaya,
excess of ESP 2 500 million (EUR 15 025 303 ) made by                   and the Comunidad autónoma del Paı́s Vasco — Gobierno
undertakings in the Territorio Histórico de Vizcaya.                   Vasco against Commission of the European Communities
The pleas in law and main arguments put forward by the                                           (Case T-231/01)
applicants are identical with those put forward in Case
T-227/01.
                                                                                (2001/C 331/51)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
Action brought on 25 September 2001 by Territorio
Histórico de Guipúzcoa — Excma. Diputación de Guipúz-
coa, and the Comunidad autónoma del Paı́s Vasco —                      An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Gobierno Vasco against Commission of the European                       ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                          Communities                                   European Communities on 25 September 2001 by the Territo-
                                                                        rio Histórico de Vizcaya — Excma. Diputación de Vizcaya, and
                         (Case T-229/01)                                the Comunidad autónoma del Paı́s Vasco — Gobierno Vasco,
                                                                        Vizcaya (Spain), represented by Ramón Falcón, lawyer.
                         (2001/C 331/50)
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)                       The applicants claim that the Court should:
                                                                        —     annul in its entirety the decision of the Commission
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                     which is contested in this action, in the alternative, annul
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                    Article 3 of that decision,
European Communities on 25 September 2001 by the Territo-
rio Histórico de Guipúzcoa — Excma. Diputación de Guipúz-
coa, and the Comunidad autónoma del Paı́s Vasco — Gobierno             —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
Vasco, Guipúzcoa (Spain), represented by Ramón Falcón,
lawyer.
The applicants claim that the Court should:
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
—     annul in its entirety the decision of the Commission
      which is contested in this action, in the alternative, annul
      Article 3 of that decision,
                                                                        The applicants contest Commission Decision C(2001)
                                                                        1763 final of 11 July 2001 declaring incompatible with the
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                        common market the tax reductions arising from Article 26 of
                                                                        Norma Foral (Regional Law) No 3/1996 of 26 June 1996, on
                                                                        corporation tax, which provides for a reduction of 99 %,
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         75 %, 50 % and 25 % of the basis for assessment of the
                                                                        aforementioned tax applicable during the four first tax years
                                                                        for undertakings which set up business in the Territorio
The applicants contest Commission Decision C(2001)                      Histórico de Vizcaya with effect from the entry into force of
1764 final of 11 July 2001 declaring incompatible with the              the Law, provided that they have disbursed capital amounting
common market the tax reductions arising from the 10th                  to more than ESP 20 million (EUR 120 202 ), invest more
addendum to Norma Foral (Regional Law) No 7/1997 of                     than ESP 80 million (EUR 430 810 ) and create more than
22 December 1997, which provides for a tax credit of 45 % of            10 new jobs.
the investment in new fixed material assets in excess of
ESP 2 500 million (EUR 15025303) made by undertakings in
the Territorio Histórico de Guipúzcoa.
                                                                        The pleas in law and main arguments put forward by the
                                                                        applicants are identical with those put forward in Case
The pleas in law and main arguments put forward by the                  T-227/01.
applicants are identical with those put forward in Case
T-227/01.


title: Case C-60/01: Action brought on 12 February 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
7.4.2001                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 108/9
Action brought on 12 February 2001 by the Commission                      Appeal brought on 12 February 2001 by Francis Panichelli
of the European Communities against the French Republic                   against the judgment delivered on 13 December 2000 by
                                                                          the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities in Joined Cases T-130/98 and
                           (Case C-60/01)                                 T-131/98 between Francis Panichelli and European Parlia-
                                                                                ment
                          (2001/C 108/12)
                                                                                (Case C-61/01 P)
An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                                (2001/C 108/13)
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 12 February
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by H. Støvlbæk and J. Adda, acting as Agents, with            An appeal against the judgment delivered on 13 December
an address for service in Luxembourg.                                     2000 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                          the European Communities in Joined Cases T-130/98 and
                                                                          T-131/98 between Francis Panichelli and European Parliament
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                    was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
the Court should:                                                         Communities on 12 February 2001 by Francis Panichelli,
                                                                          represented by Eric Boigelot, with an address for service in
                                                                          Luxembourg.
—     declare that, by failing to adopt all the measures necessary
      and appropriate in order to ensure either that all inciner-
      ation plants currently operating in France are being                The appellant claims that the Court should:
      operated in accordance with the combustion conditions
      laid down by Directives 89/369/EEC (1) and
      89/429/EEC (2) or that they cease to operate by the due             1.   declare the appeal admissible and founded;
      date, namely 1 December 1990 as regards new plants
      and 1 December 1996 as regards existing plants, the                 2.   accordingly:
      French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      Article 4(1) of Directive 89/369/EEC and Articles 2(a)
      and 4 of Directive 89/429/EEC and under the third                        (a)  set aside the contested judgment;
      paragraph of Article 249 of the Treaty establishing the
      European Community;                                                      (b) itself adjudicate on the dispute and uphold the
                                                                                appellant’s claims at first instance:
—     order the French Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                                —     annul the implied decision of the appointing
                                                                                authority rejecting the request made by the
                                                                                applicant on 11 July 1997, by which he was
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                           neither made up to Grade A 4 with effect from
                                                                                1 January 1993, nor granted the promotion
                                                                                which he sought, nor were there drawn up staff
The Commission states that it is undeniably apparent from the                             reports in respect of the periods 1993 to 1994
information made publicly available by the French authorities                             and 1995 to 1996;
themselves, and from the response of those authorities to the
letter giving formal notice and the reasoned opinion, that                          —     annul the implied rejection of the complaint
numerous incinerators have been operating — and at least                                  lodged on 26 January 1998 against the implied
seven of them are continuing to operate — without complying                               decision to reject his request of 11 July 1997;
with the combustion conditions laid down in Article 4(1) of
Directive 89/369/EEC and Articles 2(a) and 4 of Directive
89/429/EEC.                                                                         —     order the defendant to pay to the appellant,
                                                                                subject to increase in the course of the proceed-
                                                                                ings, BEF 250 000 (EUR 6 191,91) by way of
                                                                                damages to make good the material and non-
                                                                                material damage caused to him;
(1) Council Directive 89/369/EEC of 8 June 1989 on the prevention
    of air pollution from new municipal waste incineration plants (OJ
    L 163, 14.6.1989, p. 32).                                                       —     annul the decision of the Bureau of the Euro-
(2) Council Directive 89/429/EEC of 21 June 1989 on the reduction                         pean Socialists Party group (ESP) to terminate
    of air pollution from existing municipal waste-incineration plants                    the appellant’s temporary contract with effect
    (OJ L 203, 15.7.1989, p. 50).
                                                                                from the evening of 2 October 1998, brought
                                                                                to the appellant’s notice on 2 July 1998 by a
                                                                                letter from the Chair of the ESP Group, Ms
                                                                                P. Green, dated 30 June 1998 and sent by
                                                                                registered post on 1 July 1998;


title: Case T-142/06: Order of the Court of First Instance of 14 April 2008 — Elektrociepłownia (Zielona Góra) v Commission

text:
               24.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 128/36

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 14 April 2008 — Elektrociepłownia (Zielona Góra) v Commission
   (Case T-142/06) (1)

   (2008/C 128/77)

      Language of the case: English

   The President of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 178, 29.7.2006.


title: Action brought on 11 February 1997 by the Italian Republic against the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-59/97)

text:
No C 142/8            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    10 . 5 . 97
                  ORDER OF THE COURT                                       the clearance of the accounts presented by the
                        ( First Chamber)                                   Member States in respect of the expenditure for 1992
                                                                           of the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural
                       of 6 March 1997                                     Guidance and Guarantee Fund ( EAGGF ) and in
in Case C-303/96 P: Giorgio Bernardi v. European                           respect of certain expenditure for 1993 ('), so far as
                          Parliament (M                                    concerns the chapters which relate to financial
                                                                           corrections chargeable to the Hellenic Republic for
(Appeal — European Ombudsman — Nominations —                               olive oil, wine, cotton and tobacco,
Appointment procedure — Action for annulment —
      Appeal manifestly inadmissible and unfounded)
                          ( 97/C 142/ 16 )
                                                                      — order the Commission to remove the qualification
                                                                           made by it in respect of the clearance of accounts for
                                                                           1990 and to refund to the applicant the deducted sum
                (Language of the case: French)                             of Dr 4 500 000 000 .
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
         published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-303/96 P: Giorgio Bernardi ( Lawyer: Giancarlo              In its application, the Hellenic Republic alleges numerous
Lattanzi ) — appeal against the judgment of the Court of              errors of fact in relation to each of the products, olive oil,
First Instance of 11 July 1996 in Case T-146/95 Bernardi              wine, cotton and tobacco, and misinterpretation of the
v. Parliament, not yet published in the European Court                regulations . It also alleges that the Commission misused
Reports, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other           its powers or exceeded the limits of its discretion.
party to the proceedings being the European Parliament
( Agent: Ezio Perillo, assisted by Denis Waelbroeck ) — the
Court ( First Chamber), composed of: L. Sevon, President              As regards the qualification made by the Commission, the
of the Chamber, D. A. O. Edward and M. Wathelet                       applicant alleges that the Commission was obliged to
( Rapporteur ), Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate             make immediate final payment of the corresponding
                                                                      financial correction with the clearance of the accounts for
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on
                                                                      1992 .
6 March 1997, in which it:
1 . dismisses the appeal;                                             H OJ No L 323 , 13 . 12 . 1996 , p . 26 .
2 . orders Mr Bernardi to pay the costs.
H OJ No C 40, 8 . 2 . 1997.
                                                                      Action brought on 11 February 1997 by the Italian
                                                                      Republic against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
                                                                                ( Case C-59/97 )
Action brought on 6 February 1997 by the Hellenic
                                                                                ( 97/C 142/18
Republic against the Commission of the European
                           Communities
                        ( Case C-46/97 )
                                                                      An action against the Commission of the European
                          ( 97/C 142/17)                              Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
                                                                      the European Communities on 11 February 1997 by the
                                                                      Italian Republic, represented by Gianni De Bellis, Avvoca
An action against the Commission of the European                      to dello Stato, with an address for service in Luxembourg
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of                at the Italian Embassy, 5 Rue Marie-Adelaide .
the European Communities on 6 February 1997 by the
Hellenic Republic, represented by Ioannis-Konstantinos
Khalkias, Member of the State Legal Service, and                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
Panagiotis Milonopoulos, Legal Adviser in the Special
Department for Community Legal Affairs, with an address
for service in Luxembourg at the Greek Embassy, 117 Val               — annul the decision of the Commission of 20 November
Sainte-Croix.                                                              1996 No C(96)3274 final in so far as it refuses to
                                                                           allow charging to the EAGGF of Lit 11 934 331 913
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                in the clearance of accounts submitted by the Italian
                                                                           Republic in respect of expenditure in 1992,
— annul Commission Decision E ( 96 ) 3274 of
    20 November 1996 amending Decision 96/31 1/EC on                  — order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings .
 ---pagebreak--- 10 . 5 . 97         EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 142/9
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   Turin v. Ministero . delle Finanze dello Stato on the
                                                                      following question:
The Government considers that the decision of the
Commission is unlawful in so far as it orders a financial             If the judgment of the Court of Justice of 20 April 1993 in
adjustment for the purpose of clearing the EAGGF                      Joined Cases C-71/91 and C-178/91 Ponente Carni Spa
accounts with regard to the sum of Lit 11 934 331 913                 and Cispadana Costruzioni Spa v. Amministrazione delle
and accordingly challenges the decision itself, seeking the           Finanze dello Stato (*) on a reference made under
partial annulment thereof on the following ground:                    Article 177 of the EEC Treaty on the interpretation of
                                                                      Articles 10 and 12 of Council Directive 69/335/EEC (2 )
Infringement of Article                  11   of Commis              and those Articles of that Directive must be interpreted —
sion Regulation ( EEC )                No      2677 / 85 of           in proceedings brought before the national court for
24 September 1985                                                     repayment of taxes paid pursuant to national legislation
                                                                      ( Article 3 of Decree-Law No 853 of 19 December 1984,
                                                                      enacted as Law No 17/1985 , as amended ) contrary to that
The Azienda per gli Interventi nel Mercato Agricola ( State           Directive — as meaning that the prescription periods laid
Board for Intervention in the Agricultural Market, AIMA)              down by Article 13 of Decree No 641 /72 of the President
observed the provisions contained in Article 11 of                    of the Republic may or may not be relied upon in order to
Regulation ( EEC ) No 2677/85 in respect of security.                 refuse such repayment and, if they may be so relied upon,
                                                                      as meaning that those periods must start running on the
The allegations made in the Summary Report are untrue                 date of payment or at the time when the aforementioned
with regard to 82 instances 'relating to applications for             Directive was properly transposed into national law ?
aid unduly paid, covered, moreover, by valid security and
which has not yet been recovered from the national                    H [ 1993 ECR 1-1915 .
authority'.                                                           (2 ) OJ, English Special Edition 1969(11), p. 412.
Some amounts have already been received and paid to the
EAGGF. In respect of others, the sums have been
recovered by being set off against other amounts which
were payable . In one instance, the credit which fell to be
recovered is guaranteed by means of a voluntary first                 Action brought on 7 March 1997 by the Commission of
mortgage. In many other cases, the necessary executive                    the European Communities against the Italian Republic
procedures have been put in place for the compulsory                                            ( Case C-101/97)
recovery of amounts due.
                                                                                97/C 142/20 )
Finally, a special situation is that regarding the 'Caruso
Rosa' company, in respect of which the 'AgencontroP                   An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
found that there had been infringements, without,                     the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
however, succeeding in quantifying the amount of the aid              7 March 1997 by the Commission of the European
unduly paid. In the absence of reliable information, it has           Communities, represented by Enrico Traversa, of its Legal
not been possible to forfeit the securities. To that end, the         Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service at the
Guardia di Finanza has therefore been requested to                    office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,
investigate further and when such investigation is                    Kirchberg.
completed any aid unduly received by the undertaking will
be recovered .                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                      — declare that, by adopting and maintaining in force a
                                                                            law relating to value added tax which does not permit
                                                                            deduction of the tax in respect of real property
                                                                            acquired, even by means of financial leasing, in joint
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale                       ownership or co-ownership with persons who are not
Civile e Penale di Torino — Prima Sezione Civile — by                       acting in connection with carrying on a business, trade
order of that court of 14 February 1997 in the case of CIF                  or profession, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil
srl, operating in Turin, v. Ministero delle Finanze dello                   its obligations under Article 17 ( 2 ) ( a ) of Council
                              Stato                                         Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 H ( the Sixth
                       ( Case C-98/97 )                                     VAT Directive ),
                         ( 97/C 142/19 )                              — order the Italian Republic to bear the costs.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
European Communities by order of the Tribunale Civile e
Penale di Torino — Prima Sezione Civile — ( Civil and                 The Commission cannot but note the glaring discrepancy
Criminal Court, Turin, First Civil Section ) of 14 February           between Article 19 (2 ) ( e ) ( b ) of the Italian Presidential
1997, received at the Court Registry on 6 March 1997,                 Decree and Article 17 (2 ) ( a ) of the Sixth Directive, as
for a preliminary ruling in the case of CIF srl, operating in         interpreted in the decisions of the Court.


title: Case F-19/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 4 May 2016 — Nill v Commission

text:
               20.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 222/48

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 4 May 2016 — Nill v Commission
   (Case F-19/14) (1)

   (2016/C 222/71)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 184, 16/6/2014, p. 41.


title: Case T-318/03: Action brought on 15 September 2003 by ATOMIC Austria GmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
13.12.2003            EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 304/31
Action brought on 15 September 2003 by ATOMIC                            Decision of the Board of       Dismissal of the applicant’s appeal
Austria GmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in                     Appeal:
  the Internal Market (Trade marks and Designs) (OHIM)
                                                                         Pleas in law:                  —     the decision is incorrect
                                                                                because the Board of Appeal
                        (Case T-318/03)
                                                                                did not find against the
                                                                                Opposition Division for fail-
                                                                                ing to take account of all the
                        (2003/C 304/57)                                                                       evidence adduced;
                                                                                —     in the alternative, the
                  (Language of the case: German)                                                              decision is incorrect because
                                                                                the Board failed to find that
                                                                                the Opposition Division’s
                                                                                failure to draw the appli-
                                                                                cant’s attention to the miss-
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                                                ing documents contrary to
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before                                                    Rule 20(2) of Regulation
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                                                    (EC) No 2868/95 constituted
15 September 2003 by ATOMIC Austria GmbH, represented                                                         a procedural irregularity;
by G. Kucsko, lawyer. Fabricas Agrupadas de Muñecas de Onil
S.A., Alicante (Spain) was also a party to the proceedings                                              —     in the alternative, the
before the Board of Appeal.                                                                                decision      was     incorrect
                                                                                because the Board of Appeal
                                                                                failed to hold that the Oppo-
                                                                                sition Division’s failure to
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                                   point out the altered practice
                                                                                was an infringement of the
                                                                                principle of the protection of
—     annul the Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the                                                 legitimate expectations.
      Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 9 July
      2003 relating to opposition procedure No B 442 873;
—     order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Mark
      to reimburse the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         Action brought on 3 October 2003 by El Corte Inglés S.A.
                                                                         against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Applicant for Com-            Fabricas Agrupadas de Muñecas
                                                                                Market (OHIM)
munity trade mark:            de Onil S.A.
Community trade mark          Word mark ‘ATOMIC BLITZ’ for
                                                                                (Case T-342/03)
sought:                       goods in Class 28 (including
                              games and playthings; gymnastic
                              and sporting articles not included
                              in other classes)                                                   (2003/C 304/58)
Proprietor of mark or         The applicant
sign cited in the oppo-                                                                     (Language of the case: Spanish)
sition proceedings:
Mark or sign cited in         Austrian word mark ‘ATOMIC’
opposition:                   for inter alia goods in Class 28
                              (including sporting and gymnastic          An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                              articles and games)                        Market (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance
                                                                         of the European Communities on 3 October 2003 by El Corte
Decision of the Oppo-         Rejection of the opposition                Inglés, with its registered office in Madrid, represented by Juan
sition Division:                                                         Luis Rivas Zurdo and Emilio López Leiva, lawyers.


title: Case T-379/17: Action brought on 20 June 2017 — Tengelmann Warenhandelsgesellschaft v EUIPO — C & C IP (T)

text:
               7.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/39

         Action brought on 20 June 2017 — Tengelmann Warenhandelsgesellschaft v EUIPO — C & C IP (T)
   (Case T-379/17)
   (2017/C 256/45)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Tengelmann Warenhandelsgesellschaft KG (Mülheim an den Ruhr, Germany) (represented by: H. Prange and S. Köber lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: C & C IP Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘T’ — Application for registration No 011 623 097

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 March 2017 in Case R 415/2015-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (Trade Marks and designs) (‘EUIPO’) of 23 March 2017 in the appeal No R 415/2015-5 concerning the opposition proceedings No B 002 256 702 regarding European Union Trade Mark Application No 011 623 097, which was received by the applicant on 12 April 2017, and to amend it to the effect that the opposition is rejected in its entirety;

               —

               order the defendant and, as the case may be, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs of the appeal proceedings.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case C-337/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Ordinario di Torino — Sezione del Giudice per le Indagini Preliminari — by order of that Court of 15 July 2003 in the case against Fabrizio Barra

text:
C 251/4                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Union                                          18.10.2003
     quantity of telephone numbers and the retrospective               basic telecommunications networks, is exempted from those
     imposition of fees in respect of this old stock is not            charges which are, however, payable by every other operator.
     possible for reasons of national law?
If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative:                     The more favourable treatment reserved for PT Comunicações
                                                                       compared to other operators as regards the economic condi-
                                                                       tions for the granting of rights of way is not objectively
2.   In such a situation may the new entrants to the market,           justified. Reserving to PT Comunicações treatment which
     irrespective of the level of their other entry costs and          differs from that afforded to other operators without any
     without an associated analysis of their competitive               objective justification whatsoever constitutes unequal treat-
     chances in comparison with the dominant undertaking,              ment in respect of the granting of rights of way to PT
     be charged for the allocation of a telephone number a             Comunicações, which amounts to infringement of Article 4d
     one-off fee in the amount of a particular percentage (in          of the Directive.
     this case 0,1 %) of the estimated annual sales which can
     be attained if the telephone number is passed on to a final
     customer?                                                         (1) Commission Directive 90/388/EEC of 28 June 1990 on competi-
                                                                           tion in the markets for telecommunications services (OJ L 192 of
                                                                           24 July 1990, p. 10).
(1) OJ L 117, p. 15.                                                   (2) Commission Directive 96/19/EC of 13 March 1996 amending
                                                                           Directive 90/388/EEC with regard to the implementation of full
                                                                           competition in telecommunications markets (OJ L 74 of 22 March
                                                                           1996, p. 13).
Action brought on 30 July 2003 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Portuguese
                              Republic
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
                          (Case C-334/03)                              Ordinario di Torino — Sezione del Giudice per le
                                                                       Indagini Preliminari — by order of that Court of 15 July
                          (2003/C 251/08)                                          2003 in the case against Fabrizio Barra
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before                                     (Case C-337/03)
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 30 July
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                                (2003/C 251/09)
represented by A. M. Alves Vieira and S. Rating, acting as
Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by order of the Tribunale Ordinario
                                                                       di Torino — Sezione del Giudice per le Indagini Preliminari —
                                                                       (District Court, Turin — Preliminary Investigations Section) of
(1)   Declare that, by failing to ensure in practice the transpo-      15 July 2003, received at the Court Registry on 1st August
      sition into national law of Article 4d of Directive              2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case against Fabrizio
      90/388/EEC (1) in the latest version amended by                  Barra on the following questions:
      Directive 96/19/EC (2), the Portuguese Republic has failed
      to fulfil its obligations; and
(2)   Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.                  1.    Must Article 44(3)(g) of the Treaty, Articles 2(1)(f) and 6
                                                                             of the first directive (Directive 68/151/EEC (1)) and
                                                                             Article 2(2), (3) and (4) of the fourth directive (Directive
                                                                             78/660/EEC (2), as amended by Directive 83/349 (3) and
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              Directive 90/605 (4)), be interpreted as meaning that that
                                                                             legislation precludes a law of a Member State according to
                                                                             which it is not a punishable offence for companies to
Article 13 of Law No 91/97 exempts the operators of basic                    infringe their obligations concerning disclosure and the
telecommunications networks from the payment of fees for                     provision of accurate information where statements are
the installations of their networks and the granting of the                  made which, although intended to deceive members of the
necessary rights of access to the public domain. As a result                 public with a view to securing an unjust profit, are the
of that provision, PT Comunicações, being the sole operator of               consequence of estimated valuations which, taken indivi-
 ---pagebreak--- 18.10.2003               EN                              Official Journal of the European Union                                        C 251/5
     dually, depart from actual values to an extent not greater                and, consequently,
     than a certain threshold?
                                                                                1.   annul the decision taken by the Commission on
                                                                                5 April 2000 refusing to apply the weighting for
2.   With reference to the duty of each Member State to adopt                            the United Kingdom to the applicant's pension from
     ‘appropriate penalties’ for the infringements established                           8 May 1999 and, in so far as necessary, annul the
     by1 the first and fourth directives (Directive 68/151/EEC                           Commission's decision of 23 February 2001 rejecting
     and Directive 78/660/EEC), must the directives themselves                           the applicant's complaint of 18 July 2000,
     and in particular the combined provisions of Article 44(3)
     (g) of the Treaty, Articles 2(1)(f) and 6 of the first directive
     (Directive 68/151/EEC) and Article 2(2), (3) and (4) of
     the fourth directive (Directive 78/660/EEC, as amended by                      2.   order the Commission to apply the weighting for the
     Directive 83/349 and Directive 90/605), be interpreted as                           United Kingdom with retroactive effect to 8 May
     meaning that that legislation precludes a law of a Member                           1999,
     State which, in the case of infringement of the obligations
     imposed in order to safeguard the principle of public and
     accurate company information, lays down a sanctionative
     system which actually allows false accounting to the                           3.   order the Commission to pay damages provisionally
     extent of one fifth of the company's net assets?                                    assessed on an equitable basis at EUR 10 000 and to
                                                                                pay interest of 7 % on the balance of the pension
                                                                                payable from 8 May 1999,
(1) English special edition...: Series-I I Chapter 1968(I), p. 41.
(2) OJ L 222 of 14.8.1978, p. 11.
(3) OJ L 193 of 18.7.1983, p. 1.                                                    4.   order the Commission to pay all the costs.
(4) OJ L 317 of 16.11.1990, p. 60.
                                                                               B.   Set aside the decision of the Court of First Instance in so
                                                                                far as it dismissed the application in Case T-320/01 for
                                                                                the period prior to 1 January 2001
Appeal brought on 11 August by P. Del Vaglio against the
judgment delivered on 4 June 2003 by the Court of First                        and, consequently,
Instance of the European Communities (Single Judge) in
Joined Cases T-124/01 and T-320/01 between P. Del
  Vaglio and Commission of the European Communities                                 1.   annul the decision taken by the Commission on
                                                                                6 September 2001 rejecting the applicant's complaint
                          (Case C-352/03 P)                                              in respect of the application to his pension of a
                                                                                weighting for the United Kingdom with effect from
                                                                                24 September 2000,
                           (2003/C 251/10)
                                                                                2.   order the Commission to apply a weighting for the
                                                                                United Kingdom with retroactive effect to
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 4 June 2003 by                               24 September 2000,
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
(Single Judge) in Joined Cases T-124/01 and T-320/01 between
P. Del Vaglio and Commission of the European Communities                            3.   order the Commission to pay damages provisionally
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                                  assessed on an equitable bases at EUR 15 000 and to
Communities on 11 August 2003 by P. Del Vaglio, represented                              pay interest of 7 % on the balance of the pension
by M. Famchon and B. Desrez, lawyers, with an address for                                from 24 September 2000 until 1 April 2001.
service in Paris.
                                                                               Pleas and main arguments
The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                               The Court of First Instance erred in considering that the docu-
                                                                               ments produced provided sufficient evidence of the applicant's
A.    Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of                 intention to establish his residence in London only from
      4 June 2003 in so far as it dismisses the application in                 1 January 2001. The Court of First Instance also made an
      Case T-124/01                                                            error of law in considering that the fact that the applicant was


title: Case T-52/01: Action brought on 6 March 2001 by Juergen Schaefer against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 134/28               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       5.5.2001
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied          The applicant submits that the Commission justifies that
on in Case T-93/00 Alessandrini and Others v Commission (2).             decision by alleging that the Paraguayan authorities have
                                                                         expressed reservations about him but that it fails to mention
                                                                         the factual and legal matters of which the applicant should be
                                                                         aware in order, if necessary, to be able to defend his own
(1) OJ 1998 L 293, p. 32.                                                professional conduct.
(2) OJ 2000 C 176, p. 25.
                                                                         The applicant considers that the decision at issue infringes
                                                                         Article 7 of the Staff Regulations since it is contrary to the
                                                                         interest of the service. In his view, the interest of the service
                                                                         specifically requires him to remain in his current post and
                                                                         continue the complex work which has been assigned to him
                                                                         and of which he has already gained sound experience.
                                                                         The applicant further submits that the decision is vitiated by a
Action brought on 6 March 2001 by Juergen Schaefer                       complete failure to state the grounds and has been adopted
  against the Commission of the European Communities                     without the Commission at any time taking account of the
                                                                         views of the party concerned, contrary to the requirements of
                                                                         case-law.
                          (Case T-52/01)
                        (2001/C 134/59)
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                         Action brought on 6 March 2001 by Poste Italiane S.p.A.
                                                                             against Commission of the European Communities
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 6 March 2001 by Juergen Schaefer,                                         (Case T-53/01)
represented by Juan Ramón Iturriagagoitia, lawyer.
                                                                                (2001/C 134/60)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
—     annul the Commission’s decision of 12 February 2001
      relating to the applicant’s transfer back from Montevideo          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      (Uruguay) to Brussels;                                             ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 6 March 2001 by Poste Italiane
                                                                         S.p.A., represented by Gian Michele Roberti, Petrus Mathijsen,
—     annul, if appropriate, the Commission’s note of 30 No-             Alessandra Perrazzelli, Elisabetta Rubini and Andrea Sandulli,
      vember 2000 informing the applicant of the decision to             avvocati.
      transfer him back from Montevideo (Uruguay) to Brussels;
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     order the immediate suspension and, if appropriate, the
      subsequent annulment of any procedure initiated with a             —     annul the contested decision
      view to filling the vacancy arising from the order
      transferring the applicant;                                        —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
—     order, if appropriate, the annulment of the corresponding
      appointment of an official to fill the post;                       Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         By this action, Poste Italiane SpA is seeking the annulment of
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                         the decision of the Commission of 21 December 2000,
                                                                         adopted on the basis of Article 86(3) of the Treaty, in relation
                                                                         to the provision of certain new postal services with a
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          guaranteed day- or time-certain delivery. That decision declares
                                                                         incompatible with Article 4(4) of the Treaty Legislative Decree
                                                                         No 261/99 of 22 July 1999 implementing Directive 97/67/EC
The applicant, who is based in the European Commission’s                 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December
Delegation in Montevideo (Uruguay), was notified of a decision           1997 on common rules for the development of the internal
dated 12 February 2001 posting him back to Brussels with                 market of Community postal services and the improvement of
effect from 12 March 2001.                                               quality of service.(1);


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 22 June 2004 in Case T-66/03: Koffiebranderij en Theehandel ‘Drie Mollen sinds 1818’ BV v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for a figurative Community trade mark including the word ‘Galáxia’ — Earlier national and international word marks GALA — Relative ground for refusal — Rejection of opposition — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/38

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 22 June 2004
   in Case T-66/03: Koffiebranderij en Theehandel ‘Drie Mollen sinds 1818’ BV v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for a figurative Community trade mark including the word ‘Galáxia’ - Earlier national and international word marks GALA - Relative ground for refusal - Rejection of opposition - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2004/C 228/85)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case T-66/03: Koffiebranderij en Theehandel ‘Drie Mollen sinds 1818’ BV, established in 's-Hertogenbosch (Netherlands), represented by P. Steinhauser, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: J. Novais Gonçalves and S. Laitinen), the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM having been Manuel Nabeiro Silveria, Lda, established in Campo Maior (Portugal) — action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 December 2002 (Case R 270/2001-2) concerning an opposition procedure between Koffiebranderij en Theehandel ‘Drie Mollen sinds 1818’ BV and Manuel Nabeiro Silveria, Lda — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President, A.W.H. Meij and N.J. Forwood, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 22 June 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the application.

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 124 of 24.05.2003.


title: Case C-555/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikrateias — Greece) — Enosi Epangelmation Asfaliston Ellados (EEAE), Sillogos Asfalistikon Praktoron N. Attikis (SPATE), Panellinios Sillogos Asfalistikon Simboulon (PSAS), Sindesmos Ellinon Mesiton Asfaliseon (SEMA), Panellinios Sindesmos Sintoniston Asfalistikon Simboulon (PSSAS) v Ipourgos Anaptixis, Omospondia Asfalistikon Sillogon Ellados (Directive 2002/92/EC — Insurance mediation — Exclusion of the activities pursued by an insurance undertaking or an employee acting under the responsibility of such an undertaking — Whether it is possible for such an employee to pursue insurance mediation activities on an incidental basis — Professional requirements)

text:
               14.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 367/4

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikrateias — Greece) — Enosi Epangelmation Asfaliston Ellados (EEAE), Sillogos Asfalistikon Praktoron N. Attikis (SPATE), Panellinios Sillogos Asfalistikon Simboulon (PSAS), Sindesmos Ellinon Mesiton Asfaliseon (SEMA), Panellinios Sindesmos Sintoniston Asfalistikon Simboulon (PSSAS) v Ipourgos Anaptixis, Omospondia Asfalistikon Sillogon Ellados
   (Case C-555/11) (1)

   (Directive 2002/92/EC - Insurance mediation - Exclusion of the activities pursued by an insurance undertaking or an employee acting under the responsibility of such an undertaking - Whether it is possible for such an employee to pursue insurance mediation activities on an incidental basis - Professional requirements)
   2013/C 367/05
   Language of the case: Greek

      Referring court

   Simvoulio tis Epikrateias

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Enosi Epangelmation Asfaliston Ellados (EEAE), Sillogos Asfalistikon Praktoron N. Attikis (SPATE), Panellinios Sillogos Asfalistikon Simboulon (PSAS), Sindesmos Ellinon Mesiton Asfaliseon (SEMA), Panellinios Sindesmos Sintoniston Asfalistikon Simboulon (PSASS)

      Defendant: Ipourgos Anaptixis, Omospondia Asfalistikon Sillogon Ellados

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Simvoulio tis Epikrateias — Interpretation of the second subparagraph of Article 2(3) of Directive 2002/92/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 9 December 2002 on insurance mediation — Meaning of ‘insurance mediation’ — Exclusion of activities pursued by an insurance undertaking or an employee of an insurance undertaking acting under its responsibility — Scope

      Operative part of the judgment

   The second subparagraph of Article 2(3), in conjunction with Article 4(1), of Directive 2002/92/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 December 2002 on insurance mediation must be interpreted as precluding an employee of an insurance undertaking who does not possess the qualifications required under the latter provision from pursuing — on an incidental basis and not as his main professional activity — the activity of insurance mediation where such an employee does not act as a subordinate of that undertaking, even though the latter in any event supervises that person’s activities.

      (1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.


               5.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 366/10

         Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur dated 13 April 2015 in the case of Financial Services Compensation Scheme Limited v the Depositors' and Investors' Guarantee Fund (TIF)
   (Case E-8/15)
   (2015/C 366/07)
   A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter dated 13 April 2015 from Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavik District Court, Iceland), which was received at the Court Registry on 17 April 2015, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Financial Services Compensation Scheme Limited v the Depositors' and Investors' Guarantee Fund (TIF) on the following questions:

               1.

               Is it compatible with the provisions of the EEA Agreement, and in particular with Article 7(1) of Directive 94/19/EC on deposit-guarantee schemes, in the event of a systemic crisis, that the obligations of a pre-funded deposit guarantee scheme should be restricted to its assets at the time when deposits become unavailable in the sense defined in Article 1(3) of the Directive and the assets are not sufficient to meet the claims of each depositor for up to EUR 20 000?

               2.

               Is it compatible with the provisions of Directive 94/19/EC on deposit-guarantee schemes that following a systemic crisis, a Member State enacts legislation or issues regulatory acts authorising a pre-funded deposit guarantee scheme to establish a new department or account for the collection of premiums and to decide that those premiums are to be channelled into the new department or account for the purpose of building up a fund intended exclusively to meet possible future shocks and not to be available for the payment of earlier obligations?

               3.

               Is it compatible with Article 11 of Directive 94/19/EC on deposit-guarantee schemes, that a national deposit guarantee scheme (i.e. the TIF), which makes payments under guarantee, acquires rights in excess of its right of subrogation of depositors' claims in liquidation proceedings for an amount equal to its payments from the fund?