title: Case T-115/00: Action brought on 2 May 2000 by Christiane Chvatal against the Court of Justice of the European Communities

text:
C 211/22              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      22.7.2000
— Regardless of the decision given on the claim made in the              — order the Court of Justice to pay the costs.
    foregoing paragraph, require the European Commission to
    pay compensation to Miguel Angel Martı́n de Pablos, in
    accordance with Article 288 of the Treaty establishing the           Pleas in law and main arguments
    European Community, of EUR 12 000 by way of damages
    for the unjustified delay of 10 months;                              By the present action, the applicant seeks a declaration that
                                                                         the Court of Justice failed to fulfil its obligation to comply
— Order the defendant to pay the costs.                                  with the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30
                                                                         September 1998 in Case T-154/96 Chvatal and Others v Court
                                                                         of Justice (1). That judgment annulled the decision of the Court
Contentions and principal arguments                                      of Justice rejecting the applicant’s request that her name be
                                                                         included in the list of persons who expressed an interest in
The applicant, a candidate in open competition COM/A/98                  being the subject of a decision terminating their service, as
organised by the Commission to draw up a reserve list of                 provided for by Council Regulation (EC, Euratom, ECSC) No
assistant administrators, objects to the decision of the selection       2688/95 of 17 November 1995 introducing special measures
board not admitting him to the oral tests in that competition            to terminate the service of officials of the European Communi-
because he was not one of the 160 best candidates in the                 ties as a result of the accession of Austria, Finland and
written tests. The applicant considers that the decision in              Sweden (2).
question is vitiated by the lack of a statement of reasons and
misuse of powers, in that it does not disclose either the                According to the applicant, the Court of Justice is obliged to
composition of the selection board or the identity of candidates         act, not only pursuant to Article 233 of the Treaty, but also
who passed and those who failed.                                         pursuant to Article 24 of the Staff Regulations (duty to give
                                                                         assistance). In her view, she could have brought proceedings
The applicant contends that the fact that the marks for the              before the Community judicature in respect of the Council’s
written tests were notified 10 months later than the date                decision not to adopt the proposal for a regulation providing
indicated in the timetable included in the convening notice for          for the Court to release staff, or seeking the inclusion of a
the competition is detrimental to him, since it prevented him            heading in the Court budget to cover the expense involved in
from holding a full-time post in the meantime and receiving              releasing staff.
the corresponding remuneration.
                                                                         (1) [1998] ECR-SC-IA-257 and ECR-SC-II-1579.
                                                                         (2) OJ No L 280 of 23.11.1995, p. 1.
Action brought on 2 May 2000 by Christiane Chvatal
against the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                         Action brought on 5 May 2000 by Joaquı́n López Madruga
                                                                              against Commission of the European Communities
                        (Case T-115/00)
                                                                                (Case T-125/00)
                        (2000/C 211/46)
                                                                                (2000/C 211/47)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
An action against the Court of Justice of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance               An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
of the European Communities on 2 May 2000 by Christiane                  ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Chvatal, residing in Luxembourg, represented by Alain Lorang,            European Communities on 5 May 2000 by Joaquı́n López
of the Luxembourg Bar.                                                   Madruga, residing in Brussels, represented by Juan Ramón
                                                                         Iturriagagoitia.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the decision of the Court of Justice of 26 January
    2000, notified on 2 February 2000, rejecting the appli-              — annul in part the decision taken at first tacitly and,
    cant’s complaint;                                                         subsequently, by failing to reply to his request, in so far as
                                                                              it does not grant the applicant the right to transfer in full
— order the Court of Justice to pay compensation to the                       35 % of his net monthly emoluments to his bank account
    applicant in respect of the material damage suffered, as                  in the United Kingdom in order to meet university
    defined in paragraph 3 of the application;                                education costs incurred by his sons Diego and Javier;


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale, Udine (Ufficio del Giudice per le indagini preliminari), by order of that court of 20 April 1998 in the criminal proceedings pending before it against Francesca Bizzaro (Case C-177/98)

text:
C 209/26             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    4.7.98
Ð if the goods were acquired in a Member State of the                  principles contained in Article 4 of Directive 91/156/
    European Community or of the European Economic                     EEC apply and to what extent?
    Area in which they were put on sale for the first time
    without the consent of the proprietor of the trade
    mark or his representative,                                    Ð Does the activity carried on by the person under
                                                                       investigation, namely the storage of 160 kg of lead
                                                                       batteries for more than one month, without any
Ð or where goods bearing the trade mark which are                      notification to the supervisory authorities, constitute
    identical to the authentic goods bearing the same trade            temporary storage under the terms of the directive?
    mark but are imported in parallel either directly or
    indirectly from countries outside the European                 (1) OJ L 78, 26.3.1991, p. 32.
    Community or the European Economic Area are, or
    have already been, marketed within the Community or
    the European Economic Area by the proprietor of the
    trade mark or with his consent,
Ð or where goods bearing the trade mark which are                  Reference for a preliminary ruling from the         Pretura
    similar to the authentic goods bearing the same trade          Circondariale, Udine (Ufficio del Giudice per le   indagini
    mark but are imported in parallel either directly or           preliminari), by order of that court of 20 April   1998 in
    indirectly from countries outside the European                 the criminal proceedings pending before it          against
    Community or the European Economic Area are, or                                      Francesca Bizzaro
    have already been, marketed within the Community or
    the European Economic Area by the proprietor of the                                   (Case C-177/98)
    trade mark or with his consent.                                                         (98/C 209/53)
                                                                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                   European Communities by an order of the Pretura
                                                                   Circondariale (District Magistrates Court), Udine, by
                                                                   order of that court of 20 April 1998, which was received
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura
                                                                   at the Court Registry on 11 May 1998, for a preliminary
Circondariale, Udine (Ufficio del Giudice per le indagini
                                                                   ruling in the criminal proceedings pending before it
preliminari), by order of that court of 20 April 1998 in
                                                                   against Francesca Bizzaro, on the following questions:
the criminal proceedings pending before it against Paolo
                            Lirussi
                      (Case C-175/98)                              Ð What is the difference (if any) between temporary
                                                                       storage and storage of waste pending further
                        (98/C 209/52)                                  operations (or storage of materials) within the
                                                                       producer's premises, and what are the criteria for
                                                                       determining in a given case which of those forms of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 storage is involved?
European Communities by an order of the Pretura
Circondariale (District Magistrates Court), Udine, by
order of that court of 20 April 1998, which was received           Ð Is temporary storage excluded from waste
at the Court Registry on 11 May 1998, for a preliminary                management' in the sense contemplated in Article 1(d)
ruling in the criminal proceedings pending before it                   of Directive 91/156/EEC (1) and from all the
against Paolo Lirussi, on the following questions:                     obligations in relation thereto, including the
                                                                       notification of temporary storage to the supervisory
                                                                       authorities?
Ð What is the difference (if any) between temporary
    storage and storage of waste pending further
    operations (or storage of materials) within the                Ð Is temporary storage subject to supervision and, if so,
    producer's premises, and what are the criteria for                 to what type of measures; in that regard do the
    determining in a given case which of those forms of                principles contained in Article 4 of Directive 91/156/
    storage is involved?                                               EEC apply and to what extent?
Ð Is temporary storage excluded from waste                         Ð Does the activity carried on by the person under
    management' in the sense contemplated in Article 1(d)             investigation, namely the storage of 87.5 kg of sludge
    of Directive 91/156/EEC (1) and from all the                       containing halogenated solvents for more than two
    obligations in relation thereto, including the                     months, constitute temporary storage under the terms
    notification of temporary storage to the supervisory               of the directive?
    authorities?
                                                                   (1) OJ L 78, 26.3.1991, p. 32.
Ð Is temporary storage subject to supervision and, if so,
    to what type of measures; in that regard do the


title: Case F-147/15: Action brought on 17 December 2015 — ZZ v Parliament

text:
               22.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 68/46

         Action brought on 17 December 2015 — ZZ v Parliament
   (Case F-147/15)
   (2016/C 068/59)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the decision terminating the applicant’s contract.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the contested decision dated 24 February 2015;

               —

               so far as necessary, annul the rejection decision dated 9 September 2015;

               —

               order the Parliament to pay the costs.


title: Case T-721/15: Action brought on 9 December 2015 — BASF v OHIM — Evonik Industries (DINCH)

text:
               22.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 68/32

         Action brought on 9 December 2015 — BASF v OHIM — Evonik Industries (DINCH)
   (Case T-721/15)
   (2016/C 068/41)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: BASF SE (Ludwigshafen am Rhein, Germany) (represented by: A. Schulz and C. Onken, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Evonik Industries AG (Marl, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: The applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘DINCH’ — Community trade mark No 2 563 856

      Procedure before OHIM: Invalidity proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 September 2015 in Case R 2080/2014-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               amend the contested decision to the effect that the appeal of the other party before the Board of Appeal be dismissed;

               —

               in the alternative, annul the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

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

               —

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


Avis juridique important

|

E1997P0005

Request for an advisory opinion from the EFTA Court by Høyesteretts Kjæremålsutvalg by decision of that court of 16 September 1997 in the case of European Navigation Inc. v. Star Forsikring AS (uoa) (Case E-5/97)

Official Journal C 376 , 11/12/1997 P. 0014 - 0014

Request for an advisory opinion from the EFTA Court by Høyesteretts Kjæremålsutvalg by decision of that court of 16 September 1997 in the case of European Navigation Inc. v. Star Forsikring AS (uoa) (Case E-5/97) (97/C 376/13)A request has been made to the EFTA Court by decision of 16 September 1997 of Høyesteretts Kjæremålsutvalg (Interlocutory Appeal Committee of the Supreme Court), Norway, which was received at the Court Registry on 19 September 1997, for an advisory opinion in the case of European Navigation Inc. v. Star Forsikring AS (uoa), on the following questions:1. Is it incompatible with Article 4 of the EEA Agreement for national procedural rules to empower a Norwegian court to decide, at the request of a defendant, that a company with its place of business (domicile) in another EEA country than Norway must provide security for costs when it brings an action against a company with its place of business (domicile) in Norway, when such provision of security cannot be required from legal persons with their place of business (domicile) in Norway?2. If such a requirement is not, as a starting proposition, compatible with the EEA Agreement, is Article 4 of the EEA Agreement none the less to be interpreted to the effect that a requirement for provision of security for costs can be justified (proportional) on the basis of the intended purposes and objective


title: Case C-412/16 P: Appeal brought on 27 July 2016 by Ice Mountain, Ibiza, SL against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 25 May 2016 in Case T-5/15 Ice Mountain Ibiza v EUIPO — Marbella Atlantic Ocean Club (ocean beach club ibiza)

text:
               13.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/10

         Appeal brought on 27 July 2016 by Ice Mountain, Ibiza, SL against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 25 May 2016 in Case T-5/15 Ice Mountain Ibiza v EUIPO — Marbella Atlantic Ocean Club (ocean beach club ibiza)
   (Case C-412/16 P)
   (2017/C 046/13)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Ice Mountain Ibiza, SL (represented by: J. L. Gracia Albero and F. Miazzetto, abogados)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside in its entirety the judgment of the General Court of 25 May 2016, Ice Mountain Ibiza v EUIPO — Marbella Atlantic Ocean Club (ocean beach club ibiza) (T-5/15, not published, EU:T:2016:311);

               —

               Give judgment upholding in their entirety the appellant’s claims made in the proceedings before the General Court;

               —

               Order the European Union Intellectual Property Office to pay the costs, including those incurred to date before the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO, and before the General Court of the European Union.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appeal alleges misapplication of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (1) and is based, in particular, on the following pleas in law and arguments.

               1.

                  In the judgment under appeal, the General Court erred in finding that the element ‘OCEAN’ was distinctive

               The General Court misinterpreted the evidence adduced in the case and assessed it illogically.
               In addition, the General Court failed to apply the relevant case-law, namely, the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the judgments in Case C-479/12 (2) (the General Court assessed the evidence adduced too strictly in the light of the difficulty in discharging the burden of proof) and C-24/05 P (3) (it disregarded the impression of the relevant consumer).

               2.

                  In the judgment under appeal, the General Court erred in finding the dominant character of the various elements

               Distortion of the facts. Inconsistency in the reasoning in the judgment under appeal in order to substantiate the dominant character of the word elements.
               Failure to apply the case-law of the Court of Justice in the judgments in C-251/95 (4) and C-342/97 (5) (the General Court used a completely distorted example of a relevant consumer).
               Misapplication of the case-law of the General Court in the judgment in T-134/06 (6) (inconsistent application of the definition given of ‘dominant element).
               Failure to apply the case-law of the General Court in Joined Cases T-83/11 and T-84/11. (7) In the judgment under appeal, the General Court disregarded the existing case-law, which applies where a particular market is saturated.

               3.

                  In the judgment under appeal, the General Court erred in finding that the marks were similar, by not taking into account the relevant circumstances for the purpose of that analysis

               Failure to apply the case-law of the Court of Justice developed in the judgment in Case C-251/95 together with the judgments of the Court in Cases C-361/04 P (8) and C-342/97. (9)

               4.

                  In the judgment under appeal, the General Court erred in concluding that there was a likelihood of confusion.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).

      (2)  Judgment of 13 February 2014, H. Gautzsch Großhandel, C-479/12, EU:C:2014:75.

      (3)  Judgment of 22 June 2006, Storck v OHIM, C-24/05 P, EU:C:2006:421.

      (4)  Judgment of 11 November 1997, SABEL, C-251/95, EU:C:1997:528.

      (5)  Judgment of 22 June 1999, Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer, C-342/97, EU:C:1999:323.

      (6)  Judgment of 13 December 2007, Xentral v OHIM — Pages jaunes (PAGESJAUNES.COM), T-134/06, EU:T:2007:387.

      (7)  Judgment of 13 November 2012, Antrax It v OHIM — THC (Radiateurs de chauffage), T-83/11 and T-84/11, EU:T:2012:592.

      (8)  Judgment of 12 January 2006, Ruiz-Picasso and Others v OHIM, C-361/04 P, EU:C:2006:25.

      (9)  Judgment of 22 June 1999, Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer, C-342/97, EU:C:1999:323.


title: Judgment of the Court of 27 September 2001 in Case C-235/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division (Divisional Court)): The Queen v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte: Eleonora Ivanova Kondova (External relations — Association Agreement between the Communities and Bulgaria — Freedom of establishment — Leave to enter fraudulently obtained — Obligation on a Member State to pay compensation for damage caused to an individual invoking a right of establishment which is directly effective under the Association Agreement)

text:
5.1.2002               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                                 C 3/7
4.    As a result of the invalidity of Commission Regulation             M. Wathelet and V. Skouris (Presidents of Chambers),
      No 1521/95, the export refunds for cereal-based feedingstuffs,     D.A.O. Edward, J.P. Puissochet, P. Jann, L. Sevón, R. Schintgen
      for which the application was made in export declarations          and F. Macken, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; H. von
      accepted by the competent customs service on 30 June 1995          Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 27 Sep-
      and for which advance fixing had not been requested, are to be     tember 2001, the operative part of which is as follows:
      calculated in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC)
      No 1415/95 of 22 June 1995 fixing the export refunds on
      cereal-based compound feedingstuffs.                               1.   Article 45(1) of the Europe Agreement establishing an associ-
                                                                              ation between the European Communities and their Member
                                                                              States, of the one part, and the Republic of Bulgaria, of the
                                                                              other part, concluded and approved on behalf of the Community
(1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.                                                    by Decision 94/908/ECSC, EC, Euratom of the Council and
                                                                              the Commission of 19 December 1994, is to be construed as
                                                                              establishing, within the scope of application of that Agreement,
                                                                              a precise and unconditional principle which is sufficiently
                                                                              operational to be applied by a national court and which is
                                                                              therefore capable of governing the legal position of individuals.
                                                                              The direct effect which that provision must therefore be
                                                                              recognised as having means that Bulgarian nationals relying
                                                                              on it have the right to invoke it before the courts of the host
                                                                              Member State, notwithstanding the fact that the authorities of
                                                                              that State remain competent to apply to those nationals their
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                        own national laws and regulations regarding entry, stay and
                                                                              establishment, in accordance with Article 59(1) of that
                                                                              Agreement.
                     of 27 September 2001
                                                                         2.   The right of establishment, as defined by Article 45(1) of the
in Case C-235/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                     above Association Agreement, means that rights of entry and
the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s                       residence, as corollaries of the right of establishment, are
Bench Division (Divisional Court)): The Queen v Sec-                          conferred on Bulgarian nationals wishing to pursue activities of
retary of State for the Home Department, ex parte:                            an industrial or commercial character, activities of craftsmen, or
                 Eleonora Ivanova Kondova (1)                                 activities of the professions in a Member State. However, it
                                                                              follows from Article 59(1) of that Agreement that those rights
                                                                              of entry and residence are not absolute privileges, inasmuch as
(External relations — Association Agreement between the                       their exercise may, in some circumstances, be limited by the
Communities and Bulgaria — Freedom of establishment —                         rules of the host Member State governing the entry, stay and
Leave to enter fraudulently obtained — Obligation on a                        establishment of Bulgarian nationals.
Member State to pay compensation for damage caused to an
individual invoking a right of establishment which is directly
                                                                         3.   Articles 45(1) and 59(1) of the above Association Agreement,
          effective under the Association Agreement)
                                                                              read together, do not in principle preclude a system of prior
                                                                              control which makes the issue by the competent immigration
                          (2002/C 3/10)                                       authorities of leave to enter and remain subject to the condition
                                                                              that the applicant must show that he genuinely intends to take
                                                                              up an activity as a self-employed person without at the same
                   (Language of the case: English)                            time entering into employment or having recourse to public
                                                                              funds, and that he possesses, from the outset, sufficient financial
                                                                              resources and has reasonable chances of success. Substantive
                                                                              requirements such as those set out in paragraphs 217 and 219
                                                                              of the United Kingdom Immigration Rules (House of Commons
                                                                              Paper 395) have as their very purpose to enable the competent
In Case C-235/99: reference to the Court under Article 234                    authorities to carry out such checks and are appropriate for
EC from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales,
                                                                              achieving such a purpose.
Queen’s Bench Division (Divisional Court), for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
The Queen and Secretary of State for the Home Department,                4.   Article 59(1) of the above Association Agreement must be
ex parte: Eleanora Ivanova Kondova — on the interpretation                    construed as meaning that the competent authorities of the host
of Articles 45 and 59 of the Europe Agreement establishing                    Member State may reject an application made pursuant to
an association between the European Communities and their                     Article 45(1) of that Agreement on the sole ground that, when
Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Bulgaria,                 that application was submitted, the Bulgarian national was
of the other part, concluded and approved on behalf of the                    residing illegally within the territory of that State because of
Community by Decision 94/908/ECSC, EC, Euratom of the                         false representations made to those authorities or non-disclosure
Council and the Commission of 19 December 1994 (OJ 1994                       of material facts for the purpose of obtaining initial leave to
L 358, p. 1) — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez                        enter that Member State on a different basis. Consequently,
Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur),                  those authorities may require that national to submit, in due
 ---pagebreak--- C 3/8                     EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           5.1.2002
      and proper form, a new application for establishment on the            Member States, of the one part, and the Czech Republic, of
      basis of that Agreement by applying for an entry visa to the           the other part, concluded and approved on behalf of the
      competent authorities in his State of origin or, as the case may       Communities by Decision 94/910/ECSC, EC, Euratom of the
      be, in another country, provided that such measures do not have        Council and the Commission of 19 December 1994 (OJ 1994
      the effect of preventing such a national from having his situation     L 360, p. 1) — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias,
      reviewed at a later date when he submits that new application.         President, P. Jann, F. Macken and N. Colneric (Presidents
                                                                             of Chambers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola
                                                                             (Rapporteur), L. Sevón, M. Wathelet, V. Skouris and
(1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.
                                                                             C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General;
                                                                             L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
                                                                             judgment on 20 November 2001, in which it has ruled:
                                                                             1.   Article 44(3) of the Europe Agreement establishing an associ-
                                                                                ation between the European Communities and their Member
                                                                                States, of the one part, and the Republic of Poland, of the other
                                                                                part, concluded and approved on behalf of the Communities by
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                          Decision 93/743/Euratom, ECSC, EC of the Council and the
                                                                                Commission of 13 December 1993, and Article 45(3) of the
                                                                                Europe Agreement establishing an association between the
                        of 20 November 2001                                       European Communities and their Member States, of the one
                                                                                part, and the Czech Republic, of the other part, concluded
                                                                                and approved on behalf of the Communities by Decision
in Case C-268/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                         94/910/ECSC, EC, Euratom of the Council and the Com-
the Arrondissementsrechtbank te ’s-Gravenhage): Aldona                            mission of 19 December 1994, must be construed as estab-
Malgorzata Jany and Others v Staatssecretaris van                                 lishing, within the respective scopes of application of those two
                                Justitie (1)                                      Agreements, a precise and unconditional principle which is
                                                                                sufficiently operational to be applied by a national court and
                                                                                which is therefore capable of governing the legal position of
(External relations — Association agreements between the                          individuals.
Communities and Poland and between the Communities
and the Czech Republic — Freedom of establishment —
‘Economic activities’ — Whether or not they include the                           The direct effect which those provisions must therefore be
                        activity of prostitution)                                 recognised as having means that Polish and Czech nationals
                                                                                relying on those provisions have the right to invoke them before
                                                                                the courts of the host Member State, notwithstanding the fact
                             (2002/C 3/11)                                        that the authorities of that State remain competent to apply to
                                                                                those nationals their own national laws and regulations
                                                                                regarding entry, stay and establishment, in accordance with
                      (Language of the case: Dutch)                               Article 58(1) of the above Agreement with the Republic of
                                                                                Poland and Article 59(1) of the above Agreement with the
                                                                                Czech Republic.
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             2.   The right of establishment, as defined by Article 44(3) of
                                                                                the above Agreement with the Republic of Poland and by
                                                                                Article 45(3) of the above Agreement with the Czech Republic,
In Case C-268/99: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC                     means that rights of entry and residence, as corollaries of the
from the Arrondissementsrechtbank te ’s-Gravenhage (District                      right of establishment, are conferred on Polish and Czech
Court, The Hague) (Netherlands) for a preliminary ruling in                       nationals wishing to pursue activities of an industrial or
the proceedings pending before that court between Aldona                          commercial character, activities of craftsmen or activities of the
Malgorzata Jany and Others and Staatssecretaris van Justitie —                    professions in a Member State.
on the interpretation of Articles 44 and 58 of the Europe
Agreement establishing an association between the European
Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and                         However, it follows from Article 58(1) of the above Agreement
the Republic of Poland, of the other part, concluded and                          with the Republic of Poland and from Article 59(1) of the
approved on behalf of the Communities by Decision                                 above Agreement with the Czech Republic that those rights of
93/743/Euratom, ECSC, EC of the Council and the Com-                              entry and residence are not absolute privileges, inasmuch as
mission of 13 December 1993 (OJ 1993 L 348, p. 1), and of                         their exercise may, in some circumstances, be limited by the
Articles 45 and 59 of the Europe Agreement establishing an                        rules of the host Member State governing the entry, stay and
association between the European Communities and their                            establishment of Polish and Czech nationals.


title: Appeal brought on 18 January 1999 by TEAM Srl, established in Rome, against the judgment delivered on 29 October 1998 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-13/96 between TEAM Srl and the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-13/99 P)

text:
13.3.1999             EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 71/21
Action brought on 18 January 1999 by the Commission of            Appeal brought on 18 January 1999 by TEAM Srl,
the European Communities against the Portuguese                   established in Rome, against the judgment delivered on
                            Republic                              29 October 1998 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of
                                                                  First Instance of the European Communities in Case
                       (Case C-12/99)                             T-13/96 between TEAM Srl and the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities
                       (1999/C 71/36)
                                                                                (Case C-13/99 P)
                                                                                (1999/C 71/37)
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought             An appeal against the judgment delivered on 29 October
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities           1998 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First
on 18 January 1999 by the Commission of the European              Instance of the European Communities in Case T-13/96
Communities, represented by Dimitrios Gouloussis and              between TEAM Srl and the Commission of the European
António Caeiros, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent,           Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of        the European Communities on 18 January 1999 by TEAM
Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner             Srl, represented by Antonio Tizzano and Gian Michele
Centre, Kirchberg.                                                Roberti, with an address for service at the offices of
                                                                  Studio Legale Tizzano, 36 Place du Grand Sablon, 1000
                                                                  Brussels.
                                                                  The appellant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                  Ð set aside the judgment delivered by the Court of First
                                                                      Instance of the European Communities on 29 October
                                                                      1998 in Case T-13/96;
1. Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
    the laws, regulations and administrative provisions           Ð order the Commission to pay the costs of the present
    necessary to comply with Council Directive                        proceedings.
    94/45/EC (1) of 22 September 1994 on the
    establishment of a European Works Council or a                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    procedure in Community-scale undertakings and
    Community-scale groups of undertakings for the                1. On 11 May 1998 the Court of First Instance adopted
    purposes of informing and consulting employees                    a measure of organisation of procedure in the form of
    within the period prescribed by Article 14(1) thereof,            a request to the Commission to produce copies of the
    the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its                  documents relating to the contested tender procedure.
    obligations under the first paragraph of Article 5 and            That measure had in fact been applied for by the
    the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty               appellant as early as 26 January 1996, when it first
    as well as under Article 14(1) of Directive 94/45/EC;             brought the action, that is to say, over two years
    and                                                               previously. In addition, the measure in question was
                                                                      adopted six months after the closure of the written
                                                                      procedure, in the context of the oral hearing. In the
                                                                      appellant's view, that manner of proceeding constitutes
                                                                      a clear violation of the rights of the defence, since the
2. Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                      delay attending the adoption of the measure was
                                                                      excessive and unjustified.
                                                                  2. The Court of First Instance refused to take into
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   consideration crucial documents submitted by the
                                                                      appellant during the course of the hearing. According
                                                                      to the appellant, the Court of First Instance distorted'
                                                                      the evidence submitted by the appellant, inasmuch as
The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third                   it stated that that evidence was irrelevant' for the
paragraph of Article 189 and the first paragraph of                   purposes of determining the dispute. Moreover, the
Article 5 of the EC Treaty requires Member States to                  Court of First Instance provided no reasons for its
adopt the measures necessary to transpose directives                  decision.
addressed to them into their domestic law before the
expiry of the period prescribed for doing so. That period         3. In seeking to ascertain and characterise the reparable
expired on 22 September 1996 without Portugal having                  damage, the Court of First Instance completely
brought into force the necessary provisions.                          distorted the nature of the damage as claimed by the
                                                                      appellant. In addition, the Court of First Instance
                                                                      manifestly failed to provide a statement of reasons,
(1) OJ L 254, 30.9.1994, p. 64.                                       inasmuch as it did not furnish a clear explanation of
                                                                      its reasons for completely disregarding the legal
                                                                      presentation by the appellant of its case,
                                                                      notwithstanding that this was clearly set out and fully
                                                                      argued by the latter.
 ---pagebreak--- C 71/22               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   13.3.1999
    The appellant further observes that the Court of First           the European Communities on 25 January 1999 by the
    Instance misapplied the criteria for determining the             French Republic, represented by Kareen Rispal-Bellanger,
    causal link.                                                     Deputy Director responsible for matters of international
                                                                     economic law and Community law in the Ministry of
                                                                     Foreign Affairs, and FreÂdeÂrik Million, ChargeÂ de Mission,
                                                                     acting as Agents, with an address for service in
                                                                     Luxembourg at the French Embassy, 8b Boulevard
                                                                     Joseph II.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour
Administrative, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, by a                      The French Republic claims that the Court should:
judgment of 21 January 1999 in the case of Ministre de la
                    SanteÂ v Jeff Erpelding
                                                                     Ð annul the Commission's decision C(1998) 3515 final
                        (Case C-16/99)
                                                                         of 4 November 1998 concerning aid granted to
                        (1999/C 71/38)                                   Nouvelle Filature LainieÁre de Roubaix, inasmuch as it
                                                                         declares the aid granted to be incompatible with the
                                                                         common market;
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a judgment of 21 January 1999
of the Cour Administrative, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg,               Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
which was received at the Court Registry on 25 January
1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Ministre de la         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
SanteÂ v Jeff Erpelding on the following questions:
May Article 19 of Directive 93/16/EEC (1) to facilitate the          Ð Breach of an essential rule governing the procedure for
free movement of doctors and the mutual recognition of                   reviewing grants of State aid: the Commission adopted
their diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal                the decision taken by it on the basis of the
qualifications be applied, in a State with provisions on this            information available to it', whereas the Court's
matter laid down by law, in favour of an applicant with a                case-law and the rule which the Commission imposes
qualification obtained in another Member State but not                   on itself, both in its publications (1) and in its
included in the list of specialist training courses contained            decision-making practice, required it to demand the
in Article 7 of the Directive who requests authorization,                Member State concerned, by interim decision
on the basis of the training he has acquired in the other                addressed to that State, to communicate to it the
Member State, to use an equivalent professional title in                 information necessary in order for it to reach its
the host State?                                                          decision.
If not,                                                              Ð Infringement of Article 190 of the EC Treaty.
Does Article 10 of Directive 93/16/EEC confer on holders             Ð Infringement of Article 92 of the EC Treaty: manifest
of academic titles acquired in another Member State                      error of assessment in declaring the aid in question to
merely the option of using their academic title or, where                be incompatible with the common market on the basis
appropriate, the abbreviation thereof, or, conversely,                   of Article 92(3)(c) of the EC Treaty:
should the text of the directive be interpreted to the effect
that only the academic title in the language of the country              Ð The Commission's arguments in support of its
in which it was awarded may be authorised, to the                            conclusion that the undertaking concerned was
exclusion of equivalent titles formulated in the language                    uncompetitive and, consequently, not viable on a
and according to the terminology of the host State?                          long-term basis, are either wholly irrelevant or
                                                                             deeply flawed. Whilst it is true that provision was
(1) OJ L 165, 7.7.1993, p. 1.                                                made in the 1996 financial year for the investment
                                                                             premium of FF 22 million, that year Ð involving
                                                                             as it did the aforesaid exceptional element Ð
                                                                             could not be used as the basis for assessing the Ð
                                                                             allegedly negative Ð trend shown by the net
                                                                             results in subsequent years, and thus for evaluating
Action brought on 25 January 1999 by the French                              the competitiveness of the undertaking. The
Republic against the Commission of the European                              discontinuance of one of its activities (fancy yarn')
                         Communities                                         in 1998 cannot justify the conclusion that there
                                                                             was a decrease in the competitiveness of all the
                        (Case C-17/99)                                       undertaking's activities, since it concerned a
                        (1999/C 71/39)                                       marginal activity and not, as the Commission
                                                                             claims, an important part of the activities of the
                                                                             new undertaking. Lastly, it was not open to the
An action against the Commission of the European                             Commission to infer from that factor that there
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of                       was a lack of competitiveness, unless it is


title: Case T-432/08: Judgment of the General Court of 12 April 2013 — AKM v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Copyright relating to the public performance of musical works via the internet, satellite and cable retransmission — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Sharing of the geographic market — Bilateral agreements between national collecting societies — Concerted practice excluding the possibility of granting multi-territorial, multi-repertoire licences — Evidence — Presumption of innocence)

text:
               1.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/35

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 April 2013 — AKM v Commission
   (Case T-432/08) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Copyright relating to the public performance of musical works via the internet, satellite and cable retransmission - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Sharing of the geographic market - Bilateral agreements between national collecting societies - Concerted practice excluding the possibility of granting multi-territorial, multi-repertoire licences - Evidence - Presumption of innocence)
   2013/C 156/61
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Staatlich genehmigte Gesellschaft der Autoren, Komponisten und Musikverleger reg. Gen. mbH (AKM) (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: H. Wollmann and F. Urlesberger, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, A. Antoniadis and O. Weber, agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Republic of Austira (represented by: G. Hesse, C. Pesendorfer, E. Riedl, M. Fruhmann and A. Posch, agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Article 3 of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC) in so far as it concerns Staatlich genehmigte Gesellschaft der Autoren, Komponisten und Musikverleger reg. Gen. mbH (AKM);

               2.

               Annuls Article 4 of Decision C(2008) 3435 final, to the extent that it refers to Article 3 thereof, in so far as it concerns AKM;

               3.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               4.

               Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay one half of those incurred by AKM;

               5.

               Orders AKM to bear one half of its own costs;

               6.

               Orders the Republic of Austria to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 327, 20.12.2008.


title: Case T-336/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  27 October 2005  — Les Éditions Albert René v OHIM (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Earlier Community and national word mark OBELIX — Application for Community word mark MOBILIX — Article 8(1)(b) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               24.12.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 330/19

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 27 October 2005 — Les Éditions Albert René v OHIM
   (Case T-336/03) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Earlier Community and national word mark OBELIX - Application for Community word mark MOBILIX - Article 8(1)(b) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2005/C 330/46)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Les Éditions Albert René (Paris, France) (represented by: J. Pagenberg, lawyer)

      Defendant(s): Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Laitinen, Agent)

      Other party or parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Orange A/S (Copenhagen, Denmark) (represented by: J. Balling, lawyer)
   Application for
   annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 July 2003 (Case R 0559/2002-4) in opposition proceedings between Les Éditions Albert René and Orange A/S
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 85, 3.4.2004.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de Commerce, Nice, by judgment of that court of 1 February 1995 in the case of Société des Grands Garages Méditerranéens SA and Nissan France against Société Nice Ouest Automobiles (Case C-410/95)

text:
No C 46/12          | EN 1                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         17. 2 . 96
which in official sectors in which fewer women than men are               against the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex
employed in the relevant higher grade post in a career group,             parte: The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
where men and women promotion candidates are equally                      Animals and Compassion in World Farming Ltd, on the
qualified ( suitability, competence and professional                      following questions:
performance ) women must be given priority unless reasons
specific to a male candidate predominate ?
                                                                          'Where :
(') OJ No L 39, 14 . 2 . 1976 , p . 40 .
                                                                          ( a ) all of the Member States have become parties to the
                                                                                European Convention for the Protection of Animals
                                                                                Kept for Farming Purposes 1976 ('the Convention')
                                                                                and the Convention has been approved by EC Decision
                                                                                78/923/EEC (*) of 18 June 1978 ( OJ L 323 , 1978 ,
                                                                                p. 12 );
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de
Commerce, Nice, by judgment of that court of 1 February
1995 in the case of Societe des Grands Garages                            ( b ) the 1988 Recommendation concerning cattle ('the
Mediterraneens SA and Nissan France against Societe Nice                         Recommendation') has been adopted by the Standing
                      Quest Automobiles                                          Committee established pursuant to the Convention and
                                                                                has    become    effective   under    the   terms    of   the
                        ( Case C-4 10/95 )                                       Convention;
                           ( 96/C 46/22 )
                                                                          (c ) the standards laid down by and pursuant to the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                           Convention contain stipulations as to the minimum
European Communities by judgment of the 7th Chamber of                           width of veal crates and the composition of veal calves '
the Tribunal de Commerce ( Commercial Court), Nice, of                           diets;
1 February 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry
on 27 December 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Societe des Grands Garages Mediterraneens SA and Nissan                   ( d ) Council Directive 91 /629/EEC ( 2 ) lays down obligatory
France against Societe Nice Ouest Automobiles on the                             minimum standards for the protection of calves which
following question :                                                             are lower than the standards laid down by and pursuant
                                                                                to the Convention in certain respects, including the
Must Regulation No 123/85 (*) of the European Economic                           width of veal crates and the composition of calves '
Community be interpreted as prohibiting professional                             diets;
resellers of vehicles who are not party to an exclusive
distribution network from obtaining supplies from an agent                (e ) the Directive permits Member States to maintain or
for the same manufacturer in another Member State ?
                                                                                apply within their territories stricter provisions for the
                                                                                protection of calves than those laid down in this
(') Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 123/85 of 12 December                       Directive;
    1984 on the application of Article 85 ( 3 ) of the Treaty to certain
    categories of motor vehicle distribution and servicing
    agreements ( OJ 1985 L 15 , p. 16 ).                                  ( f) veal calves are exported from a Member State
                                                                                ('Member State A') to certain other Member States
                                                                                ('Member States B') which have implemented and/or
                                                                                complied with the Directive but have not implemented
                                                                                and/or complied with the standards indicated at
                                                                                paragraph (c ) above although Member State A has
                                                                                implemented and complied with those standards;
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
Justice, Queen's Bench Division, by order of that court of                 ( g) the export of calves to face rearing contrary to the
 12 December 1995 , in the case of The Queen against the                         Convention is considered to be cruel and immoral by
Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte: The                       animal welfare organizations and a considerable body
Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and                       of public opinion, supported by authoritative scientific
             Compassion in World Farming Ltd.                                    veterinary opinion, in the Member State from which
                            Case C-l /96 )                                       exports occur.'
                            ( 96/C 46/23 )
                                                                           1 . In the circumstances set out above, may Member State A
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                         rely on Article 36 of the EC Treaty and, in particular, the
 European Communities by an order of the High Court of                          grounds of public morality and/or public policy and/or
Justice, Queen's Bench Division, of 12 December 1995 ,                          the protection of the health or life of animals contained
 which was received at the Court Registry on 2 January                          therein, to justify any restriction in relation to the export
 1996, for a preliminary ruling in the case of The Queen                        of live calves from Member State A with a view to


title: Case C-182/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 March 2015 — MEGA Brands International, Luxembourg, Zweigniederlassung Zug v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(1)(b) — Application for registration of the Community word mark MAGNEXT — Opposition by the proprietor of the earlier national word mark MAGNET 4 — Likelihood of confusion)

text:
               11.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/6

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 March 2015 — MEGA Brands International, Luxembourg, Zweigniederlassung Zug v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-182/14 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 8(1)(b) - Application for registration of the Community word mark MAGNEXT - Opposition by the proprietor of the earlier national word mark MAGNET 4 - Likelihood of confusion))
   (2015/C 155/07)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: MEGA Brands International, Luxembourg, Zweigniederlassung Zug (represented by: A. Nordemann and M. Maier, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: V. Melgar, acting as Agent)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Sets aside paragraph 4 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Mega Brands v OHIM — Diset (MAGNEXT) (T-604/11 and T-292/12, EU:T:2014:56);

               2)

               Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union;

               3)

               Reserves the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.


title: Case T-162/11: Action brought on 17 March 2011 — Cofra v OHIM — O2 (can do)

text:
               7.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 139/27

         Action brought on 17 March 2011 — Cofra v OHIM — O2 (can do)
   (Case T-162/11)
   2011/C 139/51
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Cofra Holding AG (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by: K.-U. Jonas and J. Bogatz, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: O2 Holdings Ltd (Slough, United Kingdom)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 January 2011 in Case R 242/2009-4;

               —

               Order the defendant and, if appropriate, the other party to the proceedings to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: O2 Holdings Ltd.

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘can do’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 25, 35, 36, 38 and 43.

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark ‘CANDA’ for goods in Class 25.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 15 and Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1) and of Rule 22 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95, (2) in that the Board of Appeal applied criteria which are too narrow in assessing the proof of use sufficient to maintain the right and failed to have sufficient regard to the particular distribution situation in the applicant’s undertaking. Further, infringement of Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, in that the Board of Appeal wrongly failed to have regard to various documents submitted as proof of use sufficient to maintain the right in the opposing mark. Finally, infringement of Article 75(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, in that the Board of Appeal did not inform the applicant that it regarded the proof of use submitted as insufficient and did not provide the applicant with an opportunity of submitting further proof in oral proceedings.

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

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 303, p. 1).


title: Case C-246/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Patent- und Markensenat by order of that adjudication body of 9 February 2005 in Armin Häupl v Lidl Stiftung & Co KG

text:
               6.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/20

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Patent- und Markensenat by order of that adjudication body of 9 February 2005 in Armin Häupl v Lidl Stiftung & Co KG
   (Case C-246/05)
   (2005/C 193/32)
   Language of the case: German
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Oberster Patent- und Markensenat of 9 February 2005, received at the Court Registry on 10 June 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Armin Häupl and Lidl Stiftung & Co KG on the following questions:

               1.

               Is Article 10(1) of Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the ‘date of the completion of the registration procedure’ means the start of the period of protection?

               2.

               Is Article 12(1) of Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks to be interpreted as meaning that there are proper reasons for non-use of a mark if the implementation of the corporate strategy being pursued by the trade mark proprietor is delayed for reasons outside the control of the undertaking, or is the trade mark proprietor obliged to change his corporate strategy in order to be able to use the mark in good time?

      (1)  OJ L 40, 11.02.1989, p. 1.


title: Case C-124/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te 's-Gravenhage by judgment of that court of 3 March 2005 in Federatie Nederlandse Vakbeweging v. Staat der Nederlanden

text:
               25.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/2

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te 's-Gravenhage by judgment of that court of 3 March 2005 in Federatie Nederlandse Vakbeweging v. Staat der Nederlanden
   (Case C-124/05)
   (2005/C 155/03)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by judgment of the Gerechtshof te 's-Gravenhage (Netherlands) of 3 March 2005, received at the Court Registry on 16 March 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Federatie Nederlandse Vakbeweging and the Netherlands State on the following question:
   Is it compatible with Community law, and in particular with Article 7(2) of Council Directive 93/104/EC (1) of 23 November 1993, for a legislative provision of a Member State to provide for the possibility of a written agreement during a contract of employment to the effect that an employee who has, for one year, not taken his minimum annual leave, or has not taken that minimum leave in full, may receive financial compensation in respect of that leave in a subsequent year?
   The question is based on the premise that the compensation is not given in respect of the employee's entitlement to minimum leave in the current year or in the years following thereon.

      (1)  Directive 93/104/EC was replaced by Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ L 299 of 18.11.2003, p. 9).


title: Removal from the register of T-88/96

text:
No C 54/38          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    22 . 2 . 97
The applicant claims that, according to the case-law, the                   Removal from the register of T-27/96 (')
installation allowance provided for in Article 5 ( 1 ) and ( 2 )                               ( 97/C 54/63 )
of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations is in the nature of a
fixed allowance; that means that from the moment when                            (Language of the case: French)
an official shows, following a change in his place of
posting, that he has established himself in a new residence
he is entitled to the amount of the allowance without
                                                                   By order of 5 December 1996, the President of the First
                                                                   Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
having to prove that expenses were actually incurred or
the amount of those expenses . He considers that the               Communities ordered the removal from the register of
contested decision infringes that provision in that it finds
                                                                   Case T-27/96 : Boubeker Maayouchi v. Commission of the
                                                                   European Communities .
that he has not proved that expenses were actually
incurred upon his installation in Belgium. He contests,
                                                                   O OJ No C 133 , 4 . 5 . 1996 .
moreover, the alleged 'presumption of the absence of
expenses' which, according to the Commission, follows
from the mere fact that the flat which he occupied belongs
to his family, and states that such a presumption is not
laid down in any legislation and is discriminatory.
In the applicant's view, the defendant has abused its                       Removal from the register of T-88/96 (')
power and disregarded Article 110 of the Staff                                                 ( 97/C 54/64 )
Regulations in so far as, in order to justify the need for
proof of expenses, it refers to an 'agreement' on the                            (Language of the case: French)
interpretation of provisions concerning the award of the
installation allowance, which is apparently a general
provision for giving effect to the Staff Regulations and           By order of 16 January 1997, the President of the Second
adopted by the Commission in regard to this question .             Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Such a rule constitutes a restriction of the rights flowing        Communities ordered the removal from the register of
                                                                   Case T-88/96 :    Gisele       Lienard v.  Commission of the
from Article 5 of Annex VII and was adopted without
                                                                   European Communities.
observing the procedure laid down in that regard.
                                                                   (') OJ No C 233 , 10 . 8 . 1996 .


Avis juridique important

|

E1994P0008

Reference for an advisory opinion by Markedsrådet by decisions of that court of 28 October and 28 December 1994 in the case of Forbrukerombudet against Mattel Norge A/S and Mattel Scandinavia A/S (Case E-8/94)

Official Journal C 398 , 31/12/1994 P. 0006 - 0006

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 16 June 1995 in Joined Cases E-8/94 and E-9/94 (reference for an advisory opinion from the Markedsrådet): Forbrukerombudet against 1. Mattel Scandinavia A/S and 2. Lego Norge A/S (1) (Admissibility - Free movement of services - Council Directive 89/552/EEC - Transmitting State principle - Televised advertising targeting children - Broadcasters/advertisers - Circumvention - Directed advertising - Council Directive 84/450/EEC) (95/C 239/07)(Pursuant to Article 27 (5) of the Rules of Procedure authentic in English and Norwegian)In Cases E-8/94 and E-9/94: reference to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by the Markedsrådet (the Market Council), Oslo (Norway) for an advisory opinion in the two proceedings pending before in between Forbrukerombudet and 1. Mattel Scandinavia A/S, 2. Lego Norge A/S - on the interpretation of Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities, as well as Articles 11, 13 and 36 of the EEA Agreement - the Court, composed of: Bjørn Haug, President; Thór Vilhjálmsson, Kurt Herndl, Sven Norberg (Rapporteur) and Gustav Bygglin, Judges; Karin Hökborg, Registrar, gave a judgment on 16 June 1995, the operative part of which is as follows:Articles 2 (2) and 16 of Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative actions in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities, as integrated into the EEA Agreement, must be interpreted as precluding a prohibition imposed on an advertiser, whereby he is prevented from showing an advertisement contained in a television programme of a broadcaster established in another EEA State, if this arises as a consequence of a general prohibition, laid down in national law, of advertisements which specifically target children.(1) OJ No C 398, 31. 12. 1994, p. 19.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 April 2005 in Case C-25/03 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) Finanzamt Bergisch Gladbach v HE (Sixth VAT Directive — Construction of a dwelling by two spouses forming a community which does not itself perform an economic activity — Use of one room by one of the co-owners for business purposes — Status of taxable person — Right to deduct — Rules governing exercise of that right — Invoicing requirements)

text:
               11.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/7

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 21 April 2005
   in Case C-25/03 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) Finanzamt Bergisch Gladbach v HE (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Construction of a dwelling by two spouses forming a community which does not itself perform an economic activity - Use of one room by one of the co-owners for business purposes - Status of taxable person - Right to deduct - Rules governing exercise of that right - Invoicing requirements)
   (2005/C 143/06)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-25/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) made by decision of 29 August 2002, received at the Court on 23 January 2003, in the proceedings pending before that court between Finanzamt Bergisch Gladbach and HE — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), G. Arestis and J. Klučka, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General, K. Sztranc, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 21 April 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:
   Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, both in its original version and following amendment by Council Directive 91/680/EEC of 16 December 1991 supplementing the common system of value added tax and amending Directive 77/388/EEC with a view to the abolition of fiscal frontiers, is to be interpreted as follows:

               —

               where a person purchases a house, or has a house built, in order to live in it with his family he is acting as a taxable person, and is thus entitled to make deductions under Article 17 of the Sixth Directive in so far as he uses one room in that building as an office for the purposes of carrying out an economic activity, albeit an ancillary one, within the meaning of Articles 2 and 4 of the directive and allocates that part of the building to the assets of his business;

               —

               where a marital community which does not have legal personality and does not itself carry out an economic activity within the meaning of the Sixth Directive places an order for a capital item, the co-owners forming that community are to be regarded as recipients of the transaction for the purposes of the directive;

               —

               where spouses forming a community by marriage purchase a capital item, part of which is used exclusively for business purposes by one of the co-owning spouses, that spouse is entitled to deduct in respect of all the input value added tax attributable to the share of the item which he uses for the purposes of his business, in so far as the amount deducted does not exceed the limits of the taxable person's interest in the co-ownership of the item;

               —

               Articles 18(1)(a) and 22(3) of the Sixth Directive do not require the taxable person, in order to be able to exercise the right to deduct in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, to hold an invoice issued in his name and stating the proportions of the payments and value added tax corresponding to his interest in the property held in co-ownership. An invoice issued to the co-owning spouses without distinguishing between them and without reference to such apportionment is sufficient for that purpose.

      (1)  OJ C 70 of 22.3.2003.


title: Case C-131/01: Action brought on 21 March 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
C 150/16               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     19.5.2001
Action brought on 21 March 2001 by the Commission of                     French Republic, or implementation deadlines. The ‘local
 the European Communities against the French Republic                    recycling programmes for eliminating the main types of
                                                                         industrial waste’ communicated at the same time are, even
                                                                         taking into account subsequent exchanges of correspondence,
                         (Case C-10/01)                                  very imprecise, contain no schedule or timetable, and do not
                                                                         cover the whole of France.
                        (2001/C 150/30)
                                                                         In relation to the laws and regulations communicated, which
                                                                         relate to the conditions for being granted prior authorisation
An action against the French Republic was brought before the             with emission standards, the Commission considers that a
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 21 March                 system of prior authorisation in relation to the discharge
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,                      of dangerous substances cannot, however indispensable, be
represented by G. Valero Jordana and J. Adda, acting as Agents,          considered to render the programmes referred to in Article 7
with an address for service in Luxembourg.                               of the Directive superfluous.
                                                                         As regards the quality objectives for water into which the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              substances in List II are discharged, throughout their corre-
                                                                         spondence the authorities in the French Republic manifested
                                                                         an increasing reluctance to implement such objectives. As for
—     find that, by failing to adopt pollution reduction pro-
                                                                         the measures communicated, the only quality objectives
      grammes including quality objectives for the 99 danger-
                                                                         referred to in the correspondence from the French Government
      ous substances listed in the Annex and failing to com-
                                                                         relate to water-courses, not to inland water, sea water or near-
      municate to the Commission summaries of those pro-
                                                                         shore waters. Furthermore the objectives referred to are too
      grammes and the results of their implementation, con-
                                                                         imprecise to comply with the requirements of Article 7 of the
      trary to Article 7 of Directive 76/464/EEC, (1) the French
                                                                         Directive.
      Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
      Treaty;
                                                                         (1) Council Directive 76/464/EEC of 4 May 1976 on pollution cause
—     order the French Republic to pay the costs.                            by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic
                                                                             environment of the Community (OJ 1976 L 129 p. 23).
Pleas in law and main arguments
Although the French Republic has communicated a certain
number of measures supposedly constituting a national pro-
gramme as referred to in Article 7(1) of the Directive, it
                                                                         Action brought on 21 March 2001 by the Commission of
challenges, in a manner that becomes more marked as its
                                                                           the European Communities against the Italian Republic
correspondence progresses, the duty to implement reduction
programmes under Article 7 of the Directive including quality
objectives for the substances in List II of the Directive.                                        (Case C-131/01)
Although the French Republic has implemented certain
measures intended to combat pollution by dangerous sub-
stances, those measures do not amount to proper implemen-                                         (2001/C 150/31)
tation of Article 7 of Directive 76/464/EEC as regards the
implementation of programmes to reduce pollution caused by               An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
the relevant substances in List II including quality objectives          Court of Justice on 21 March 2001 by the Commission of the
for water into which those substances are discharged.                    European Communities, represented by Bernard Mongin and
                                                                         Roberto Amorosi, acting as Agents
As regards the establishment of programmes, in 1991 the
French Republic communicated a ‘national programme’ com-                 The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:
prising a series of uncoordinated measures with no objectives
or overall schedule. The ‘sectoral programmes’ contained                 —     Declare that, by keeping in force rules requiring patent
therein are in fact no more than a description of the legal                    consultants residing in other Member States to be entered
framework applicable (or even just contemplated), resulting                    on the Italian register of patent consultants and to have a
from national legislation relating to facilities classified as being           residence or professional address in Italy in order to
for the protection of the environment, and do not contain any                  provide services involving dealings with the Patent Office,
specific plans or concrete objectives to reduce pollution by the               the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
dangerous substances referred to in List II or for those of the                under Articles 49 to 55 of the EC Treaty regarding the
99 priority substances relevant in the national context for the                freedom to provide services;
 ---pagebreak--- 19.5.2001               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 150/17
—     Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                        was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                          Communities on 23 March 2001 by Autosalone Ispra Snc dei
                                                                          Fratelli Rossi, represented by Francandrea Venuto, of the Busto
Pleas and principal arguments                                             Arsizio Bar, with an address for service at the Chambers of
                                                                          Mr Kronshagen, 22 Rue Marie Adélaïde.
(a)   Article 94 of Royal Decree No 1127 of 29 June 1939
      prevents industrial property consultants properly pursu-            The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:
      ing their profession in other Member States but not
      entered on the requisite register in Italy from acting,
                                                                          —     Set aside in its entirety the order of the Court of First
      occasionally and on a temporary basis, as agents in                       Instance contested in these proceedings:
      dealings with the Patent Office on behalf of clients who
      approach them for that purpose.
                                                                                —     Find and declare that the abovementioned order was
      In the Commissions’s view, that requirement is contrary                         made in breach of Article 111, Chapter II, of the
      to Article 49 of the EC Treaty: although it is true that, in                    Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance of
      the absence of harmonisation, Member States are in                              the European Communities;
      principle competent to define the requirements for access
      to the practice of an activity, that does not mean that                   —     In any event reject the objection raised by the
      they are released from the requirement of upholding the                         Commission of the European Communities before
      fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty, in                               the Court of First Instance of the European Com-
      particular as provided by Article 49.                                           munities that the action is time-barred;
(b) For entry on the register of patent consultants authorised                  —     In any event find and declare that the application
      to practise in Italy, Article 2 of Ministerial Decree 342/95                    originating the proceedings before the Court of First
      imposes the further requirement of having a residence or                        Instance of the European Communities in Case
      a professional office in Italy, except in the case of citizens                  T-124/99 is admissible;
      of States which allow Italian citizens to be entered on the
      corresponding registers without fulfilling that require-            —     Grant in its entirety the form of order sought by the
      ment.                                                                     applicant at first instance:
      It is clear that a consultant intending to practise alone in              —     Find and declare that the EAEC is liable under the
      Italy would find it very difficult to establish a professional                  second paragraph of Article 188 of the EAEC Treaty
      practice in that country. He would feel unable to proceed,                      on the basis of the facts and documents relied on by
      for which reason in this case too that there is clearly an                      the applicant in those proceedings, which are to be
      unjustified obstacle to observance of the principle of                          deemed to be reproduced in their entirety in this
      freedom to provide services.                                                    notice of appeal;
                                                                                —     Consequently, order the EAEC, represented by the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities, to pay
                                                                                to the persons vested with legal representation of
                                                                                the appellant, Autosalone Ispra Snc dei Fratelli Rossi,
                                                                                the principal sum of ITL 1 245 000 000 , adjusted
                                                                                by way of monetary revaluation, with interest
Appeal brought on 23 March 2001 by Autosalone Ispra                                   accruing thereon until due payment, or such other
Snc dei Fratelli Rossi, established in Ispra, against the                             sum as may be held to be fair;
order made on 17 January 2001 by the Second Chamber
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communi-                         —     The decision given should be enforceable and
ties in Case T-124/99 between Autosalone Ispra Snc dei                                include an order that the defendant pay the costs at
Fratelli Rossi and European Atomic Energy Community,                                  both instances;
represented by the Commission of the European Com-
                              munities                                          —     By way of preparatory inquiry, grant the preparatory
                                                                                measures requested by the applicant before the
                         (Case C-136/01 P)                                            Court of First Instance.
                          (2001/C 150/32)
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
An appeal against the order made on 17 January 2001 by the
Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European             The appellant submits that the order made by the Court of
Communities in Case T-124/99 between Autosalone Ispra Snc                 First Instance is vitiated for the following reasons:
dei Fratelli Rossi and European Atomic Energy Community,
represented by the Commission of the European Communities,                —     Failure to hear the views of the Advocate General.


title: Case T-207/16 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 8 May 2017 — Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis v Commission (Interim measures — Public contracts — Disclaimer notice — Screening opinion — Application for a stay of execution — Lack of urgency)

text:
               17.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 231/23

         Order of the President of the General Court of 8 May 2017 — Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis v Commission
   (Case T-207/16 R)
   ((Interim measures - Public contracts - Disclaimer notice - Screening opinion - Application for a stay of execution - Lack of urgency))
   (2017/C 231/29)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis (Thessaloniki, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Delaude and A. Katsimerou, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application on the basis of Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TEFU seeking a stay of execution of the general exclusion decision concerning the applicant in the Early Warning System or in the Early Detection and Exclusion System.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is rejected.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.