title: Case T-153/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 June 2006 — Inex SA v OHIM — Wiseman (Representation of a cowhide) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for a figurative mark consisting of a representation of a cowhide in black and white — Earlier national figurative trade mark comprising in part a representation of a cowhide in black and white — Distinctive character of an element of a trade mark — Absence of likelihood of confusion — Rejection of the opposition — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               12.8.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/17

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 June 2006 — Inex SA v OHIM — Wiseman (Representation of a cowhide)
   (Case T-153/03) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for a figurative mark consisting of a representation of a cowhide in black and white - Earlier national figurative trade mark comprising in part a representation of a cowhide in black and white - Distinctive character of an element of a trade mark - Absence of likelihood of confusion - Rejection of the opposition - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2006/C 190/29)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Inex SA (Bavegem, Belgium) (represented by: T. van Innis, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: initially, U. Pfleghar and G. Schneider, and subsequently, G. Schneider and A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Robert Wiseman & Sons Ltd (Glasgow, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Roughton, Barrister)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 February 2003 (Case R 106/2001-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Inex SA and Robert Wiseman & Sons Ltd.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 19.7.2003.


C 118/24              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                     21.4.2001
       Removal from the register of Case C-402/99 (1)                     Removal from the register of Case C-160/00 (1)
                        (2001/C 118/46)                                                    (2001/C 118/49)
By order of 27 September 2000 the President of the Court of        By order of 28 September 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal        Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-402/99: Commission of the              from the register of Case C-160/00: Commission of the
European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.                         European Communities v Ireland.
(1) OJ C 6 of 8.1.2000.                                            (1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-46/00 (1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-128/99 (1)
                        (2001/C 118/47)                                                    (2001/C 118/50)
By order of 28 September 2000 the President of the Court of        By order of 3 October 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal        Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-46/00: Commission of the               from the register of Case C-128/99: [reference for a preliminary
European Communities v Ireland.                                    ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria)]: Johann Kappel
                                                                   v Pensionsversicherungsanstalt der Arbeiter.
(1) OJ C 102 of 8.4.2000.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-85/00 (1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-464/99 (1)
                        (2001/C 118/48)                                                    (2001/C 118/51)
By order of 28 September 2000 the President of the Court of        By order of 3 October 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal        Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-85/00: Commission of the               from the register of Case C-464/99: Commission of the
European Communities v Hellenic Republic.                          European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
(1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.2000.                                         (1) OJ C 47 of 19.2.2000.


title: Action brought on 2 March 1998 by the Foreign Trade Association (FTA), Hypermarché Auchan SA, Karstadt Aktiengesellschaft, Kaufhof Warenhaus AG, La Blanche Porte, Otto Versand GmbH & Co., Quelle Schickedanz AG & Co. and Textilimportörerna against the Council of the European Union (Case T-37/98)

text:
C 113/20             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   11.4.98
    Committee in Brussels, inter alia, by calling a new             Action brought on 2 March 1998 by the Foreign Trade
    constituent meeting of that committee,                          Association (FTA), HypermarcheÂ Auchan SA, Karstadt
                                                                    Aktiengesellschaft, Kaufhof Warenhaus AG, La Blanche
                                                                    Porte, Otto Versand GmbH & Co., Quelle Schickedanz
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.                             AG & Co. and Textilimportörerna against the Council of
                                                                                the European Union
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                                         (Case T-37/98)
                                                                                (98/C 113/48)
The applicant, both in his own name and that of the
UIECS, challenges the refusal of the Administration to                              (Language of the case: English)
intervene in the membership of the Bureau of the local
section of the Staff Committee in Brussels. He explains             An action against the Council of the European Union was
that, following the election, in February 1997, of the              brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
members of the local Staff Committee in Brussels, that              Communities on 2 March 1998 by the Foreign Trade
committee held a constituent meeting to appoint the                 Association (FTA), HypermarcheÂ Auchan SA, Karstadt
members of its Bureau. Rather than distributing the seats           Aktiengesellschaft, Kaufhof Warenhaus AG, La Blanche
on the Bureau fairly in proportion with the electoral               Porte, Otto Versand GmbH & Co., Quelle Schickedanz
results, three trade union and staff associations took all          AG & Co. and Textilimportörerna, all represented by
the seats on the pretext of the slim majority which those           Ursula Schliessner, with an address for service in
three organisations had in the local committee in Brussels.         Luxembourg at the Offices of Arendt & Medernach, 8Ð
All other trade union and staff associations were left out          10, rue Mathias Hardt.
of the Bureau. The present proceedings are brought
following rejection of the request for intervention by the
appointing authority to put the situation right.                    The applicants claim that the Court should:
                                                                    Ð declare Council Regulation (EC) No 2398/97 to be
In support of his claims, the applicant argues that the                  illegal and void,
contested decison breaches
                                                                    Ð take such other steps as justice may require, and
Ð Article 2(1) of the Staff Regulations and the decision
    of the Commission concerning the exercise of the                Ð order the Commission to pay the costs of the
    powers conferred on the appointing authority by the                  applicants in the present proceedings.
    Staff Regulations, published in Administrative notices'
    No 498 of 7 April 1986, in that the contested decision
    was signed by the member of the Commission                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    responsible for personnel and administration, whereas
    only the Commission as a whole or the Director-                 By the contested Regulation a definitive anti-dumping
    General of Personnel and Administration had the                 duty has been imposed on imports of bed-linen of cotton
    authority to sign it,                                           fibres, pure or mixed with man-made fibres or flax
                                                                    bleached, dyed or printed originating in India, Pakistan
                                                                    and Egypt.
Ð Articles 9, 10, 11 and 14 of the Rules laying down
    the composition and operation of the Staff Committee'
    adopted by the Commission on 25 April 1988, and                 The applicants other than the Foreign Trade Association
    Articles 7 and 32 of the Internal Rules of the local            (FTA) are the largest European importers and retailers of
    Staff Committee in Brussels, in that the Commission             bed-linen products. Each is a member of the applicant
    decided that it need not intervene to ensure collective        Foreign Trade Association (FTA), which is an association
    responsibility' and proportional' representation in the        of European importer and retail interests principally in the
    membership of the Bureau of the local Staff                     textile and consumer products sector. Also included
    Committee in Brussels, following the elections at issue.        among the FTA's members are national importer
                                                                    associations.
The applicant argues further that it is unacceptable, under         The applicants plead an infringement of Article 1(4) of the
the provisions mentioned, for certain elected members of            Basic Regulation, Regulation (EC) No 384/94, arguing
the local Staff Committee to take up all the seats on the           that the Commission abused its discretion regarding the
Bureau on the basis of a slim majority of votes. Moreover,          like product' detemination when, in rejecting the
such an attitude runs counter to the general principle in           applicants' submissions in that regard, it did not justify
Article 9(3) of the Staff Regulations, the underlying aim of        this by reference, at the very least, to the standard of the
which is to allow the joint expression of all political             objective evidence or explanation submitted by the
positions found among the staff in such a way that a                applicants.
majority does not oppress a minority and thus deprive it
of genuine and effective representation.
                                                                    Furthermore, the applicants submit that the Council has
                                                                    committed a manifest error of assessment of the
                                                                    Community interest within the meaning of Article 21 of
 ---pagebreak--- 11.4.98              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                C 113/21
the Basic Regulation, in particular with respect to the            Instance of the European Communities has ordered the
potential impact of definitive anti-dumping measures on            removal from the register of Case T-78/94: Hermann
importers/retailers and consumers. The procedure within            Cordes v. Council of the European Union and
the meaning of Article 21 requires an active analysis of           Commission of the European Communities.
the Community interest issues, at least to the extent that
these are raised by interested parties. Once legitimate            (1) OJ C 103, 11.4.1994.
points are raised in this context, the Commission is bound
either to agree and make recommendations accordingly to
the Council for its definitive measures, or to provide a
reasonable explanation of its decision to the contrary.
Neither of these steps was taken in this case, contrary to
the legitimate expectations of the applicants.                           Removal from the register of Case T-192/95 (1)
Finally, the applicants submit that the Council's decision                                 (98/C 113/52)
to impose definitive anti-dumping duties on top of the
existing quantitative restrictions on imports of the product                      (Language of the case: English)
concerned from two (India and Pakistan) of the three
exporting countries is contrary to the principle of                By order of 5 February 1998 the President of the Third
proportionality.                                                   Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First
                                                                   Instance of the European Communities has ordered the
                                                                   removal from the register of Case T-192/95: Hitachi Ltd,
                                                                   Matsushita Electronics Corporation, Mitsubishi Electric
                                                                   Corporation, NEC Corporation, Oki Electric Industry Co.
                                                                   Ltd, Sanyo Electric Co. Ltd, Sharp Corporation and
      Removal from the register of Case T-191/93 (1)               Toshiba Corporation v. Commission of the European
                        (98/C 113/49)                              Communities.
               (Language of the case: German)                      (1) OJ C 351, 30.12.1995.
By order of 30 January 1998 the President of the First
Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case T-191/93: Albrecht Graf
Brockdorff-Ahlefeldt v. Council of the European Union.                   Removal from the register of Case T-215/95 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 113/53)
(1) OJ C 270, 19.10.1992.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                   By order of 2 February 1998 the President of the Fourth
                                                                   Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First
Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-207/93 and             Instance of the European Communities has ordered the
                         T-224/93 (1)                              removal from the register of Case T-215/95: Telecom Italia
                        (98/C 113/50)                              SpA v. Commission of the European Communities.
               (Language of the case: German)                      (1) OJ C 46, 17.2.1996.
By order of 30 January 1998 the President of the First
Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Joined Cases T-207/93 and
T-224/93: Hans-Erdmann von Flotow and Gunda                              Removal from the register of Case T-197/96 (1)
Bergmann v. Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                                (98/C 113/54)
(1) OJ C 270, 19.10.1992.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                   By order of 30 January 1998 the President of the Fourth
                                                                   Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                   Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
       Removal from the register of Case T-78/94 (1)               Case T-197/96: Consorzio del Formaggio Parmigiano
                                                                   Reggiano and Latteria Sociale Spadarotta soc. coop. arl v.
                        (98/C 113/51)
                                                                   Commission of the European Communities.
               (Language of the case: German)
                                                                   (1) OJ C 54, 22.2.1997.
By order of 30 January 1998 the President of the First
Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First


title: Joined Cases T-425/15, T-426/15 and T-428/15: Judgment of the General Court of 4 May 2017 — Schräder v CPVO — Hansson (SEIMORA) (Plant variety rights — Application for revocation of the Community protection of the plant variety rights granted to the variety SEIMORA — Application for a declaration of invalidity of the Community protection of the plant variety rights granted to the variety SEIMORA — Application for Community protection of plant variety rights for the variety SUMOST 02 — Composition of the Board of Appeal of CPVO — Principle of impartiality)

text:
               26.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 202/16

         Judgment of the General Court of 4 May 2017 — Schräder v CPVO — Hansson (SEIMORA)
   (Joined Cases T-425/15, T-426/15 and T-428/15) (1)

   ((Plant variety rights - Application for revocation of the Community protection of the plant variety rights granted to the variety SEIMORA - Application for a declaration of invalidity of the Community protection of the plant variety rights granted to the variety SEIMORA - Application for Community protection of plant variety rights for the variety SUMOST 02 - Composition of the Board of Appeal of CPVO - Principle of impartiality))
   (2017/C 202/28)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Ralf Schräder (Lüdinghausen, Germany) (represented by: T. Leidereiter, lawyer)

      Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) (represented by: M. Ekvad and F. Mattina, acting as Agents, and A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of CVPO, intervener before the General Court: Jørn Hansson (Søndersø, Denmark) (represented by: G. Würtenberger and R. Kunze, lawyers)

      Re:

   In Case T-425/15, action brought against the decision of the Board of Appeal of CVPO of 24 February 2015 (Case A 003/2010) concerning an application for revocation of the Community protection of the plant variety rights granted to the variety SEIMORA; in Case T-426/15, action brought against the decision of the Board of Appeal of CVPO of 24 February 2015 (Case A 002/2014) concerning an application for a declaration of invalidity of the Community protection of the plant variety rights granted to the variety SEIMORA; and, in Case T-428/15, action brought against the decision of the Board of Appeal of CVPO of 24 February 2015 (Case A 007/2009) concerning an application for Community protection of plant variety rights for the variety SUMOST 02.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the actions;

               2.

               Orders Mr Ralf Schräder to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 328, 5.10.2015.


title: Case T-497/17: Action brought on 4 August 2017 — Sánchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and SRB

text:
               2.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 330/15

         Action brought on 4 August 2017 — Sánchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and SRB
   (Case T-497/17)
   (2017/C 330/20)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Manuel Alfonso Sánchez del Valle (Madrid, Spain) and Calatrava Real State 2015 (Madrid) (represented by: B. Gutiérrez de la Roza Pérez, P. Rubio Escobar, R. Ruiz de la Torre Esporrín and B. Fernández García, lawyers)

      Defendants: European Commission and Single Resolution Board

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board at its executive session of 7 June 2017 to adopt the resolution scheme regarding the institution Banco Popular Español S.A.;

               —

               Annul Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 endorsing the resolution scheme for Banco Popular Español, S.A.;

               —

               Order the defendant[s] and the interveners to pay the costs in respect of all or part of the claims.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on 11 pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging lacking or insufficient reasoning for the contested decision, which entails infringement of Articles 41(2) and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 20(1) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 by failing to carry out a reasonable, prudent and realistic valuation of the assets and liabilities of Banco Popular by an independent person before the resolution decision.

               3.

               Infringement of Article 18(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 18(4)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014, insofar as the contested decisions uphold the resolution of Banco Popular while, as at 6 June 2017, that bank had no solvency problems and its liquidity problems were temporary.

               4.

               Infringement of Article 18(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014, insofar as the contested decisions consent to the resolution of Banco Popular, while there were reasonable prospects that other means from the private sector could prevent it become unviable within a reasonable time.

               5.

               Infringement of Article 14(2) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014, since no attempt was made to minimise the cost of the resolution and avoid the destruction of wealth, which was unnecessary to achieve the objectives of the resolution.

               6.

               Infringement of Article 22 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014, by failing to weight the contested decisions and adopt resolution tools other than the sale of the business, provided for in paragraph 2 thereof, in accordance with the factors set out in paragraph 3.

               7.

               Infringement of Article 15(1)(g) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014, insofar as the shareholders ought to have received more than they would receive in the event of insolvency.

               8.

               Infringement of Article 29 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014.

               9.

               Infringement of the right to property and, in consequence, of Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

               10.

               Infringement of the right to an effective remedy, given the inability of the shareholders to protect their position.

               11.

               Infringement of the right of the shareholders and other holders of securities included in the scope of the write-down and conversion to be heard before adoption of the individual measure, which adversely affects them, of write-down of their assets.


title: Case T-383/94: Action brought on 5 December 1994 by Ernst-Ulrich Horn against Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities

text:
 No C 400 / 14                         Official Journal of the European Communities                               31 . 12 . 94
                                          COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Action brought on 5 December 1994 by Ernst-Ulrich                — declare that the applicant is now entitled to enter the
Horn against Council of the European Union and                       competition at its current stage,
        Commission of the European Communities
                       (Case T-383/94)                           — order the Council to pay the applicant (a fixed sum)
                                                                     for material and non-material damage and expenses
                        (94/C 400/03)                                incurred,
               (Language of the case: German)                    — order the Council to pay the costs.
An action against the Council of the European Union              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
and Commission of the European Communities was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the                The applicant states that he completed an application for
European Communities on 5 December 1994 by                       Open Competition Council/A/ 338 and posted it on
Ernst-Ulrich Horn, Kembs (Federal Republic of                    Monday 28 February 1994, the closing date. Never
Germany), represented by Dr Lukanow, Rechtsanwalt,               theless, the Directorate for Personnel and Administration
Euskirchen, with an address for service in Luxembourg            of the Council decided not to admit him to the tests for
at the Chambers of Dupong & Associes, 14a Rue des                that competition on the ground that the envelope
Bains .
                                                                 containing his documentation was not postmarked and
The applicant claims that the Court should :                     that the stamp indicating receipt by the mail department
                                                                 was dated 3 March 1994 .
Order the defendants to pay to the applicant compen
sation for the period of five milk years from 1 April 1988       The applicant maintains, on the one hand, that posting
in the amount of DM 41 855, together with interest               the application before midnight on 28 February 1994 is
thereon at 8 °/o from 26 January 1985.                           sufficient for an application to the competition and, on
                                                                 the other hand, that the language used in Part VI of the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:              Notification of Competition is not mandatory, at least in
                                                                 so far as the postmark cannot be considered to be a sine
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those         qua non of an admissible application.
in Case T-20/94 .
                                                                 The applicant considers that, given the wording of
                                                                 Section VI, a dispute as to the date of postage can be
                                                                 resolved either by accepting applications for a reasonable
                                                                 time after 28 February, beyond which the onus of
                                                                 proving postage would shift to the applicant, or, even on
                                                                 a very strict view of the matter, by requiring the
                                                                 applicant to supply proof of posting. The applicant is
                                                                 willing and able to prove postage.
Action brought on 19 December 1994 by Diarmuid
Rossa Phelan against the Council of the European Union
                       (Case T-392/94)
                        (94/C 400/04)
               (Language of the case: English)
An action against the Council of the European Union
was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 19 December 1994 by                      Action brought on 28 December 1994 by Gerjet
Diarmuid Rossa Phelan, represented by Desmond                    Meyenburg against Council of the European Union and
O'Neill, Law Library Building, 158 /9 Church Street,                     Commission of the European Communities
Dublin.                                                                               (Case T-397/94)
The applicant claims that the Court should :                                           (94/C 400/05)
— annul the decision of 16 September 1994 whereby the                          (Language of the case : German)
    Directorate for Personnel and Administration in
    Open Competition refused to admit the applicant to           An action against the Council of the European Union
    the tests for the competition,                               and Commission of the European Communities was


title: Case F-4/05: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 18 June 2008 — Huober v Council

text:
               2.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 197/38

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 18 June 2008 — Huober v Council
   (Case F-4/05)
   (2008/C 197/74)

      Language of the case: French

   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register, following amicable settlement.


title: Case C-490/07: Order of the President of the Court of 4 August 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Cyprus

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/29

         Order of the President of the Court of 4 August 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Cyprus
   (Case C-490/07) (1)

   (2008/C 301/44)

      Language of the case: Greek

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

      (1)  OJ C 315, 22.12.2007.


               19.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/19

         Removal from the register of Case C-95/03 (1)

   (2005/C 45/36)

      (Language of the cas: French)

   By order of 8 November 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-95/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Bruxelles): Vincenzo Piliego v Centre public d'aide sociale de Bruxelles (CPAS).

      (1)  OJ C 101 of 26.4.03.


title: Case C-287/00: Action brought on 20 July 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany

text:
23.9.2000              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 273/9
Action brought on 20 July 2000 by the Commission of                     State universities and higher-education establishments are
the European Communities against the Federal Republic                   commissioned to carry out. It maintains that the argument
                           of Germany                                   advanced by the (German) Federal Government, to the effect
                                                                        that it is not possible in practice to draw a distinction between
                         (Case C-287/00)                                research activities and teaching activities (the latter being
                                                                        exempt from tax under Article 13(A)(1)(i), is based — as is
                                                                        apparent from the situation in other Member States — on
                         (2000/C 273/13)                                domestic factors which cannot be invoked by a Member State.
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                   (1) OJ L 145 of 13 June 1977, p. 1.
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 20 July 2000 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Günter Wilms and Kilian Gross,
of its Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg
at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service,
Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg.
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             grande instance de Paris (Third Chamber — Second
                                                                        section) by decision of that court of 23 June 2000 in the
(1) declare that, by exempting the research activities of State              case of S.A. LTJ Diffusion v S.A. Sadas Vertbaudet
      universities and higher education establishments from
      turnover tax pursuant to Paragraph 4(21a) of the Umsatz-
      steuergesetz (Law on Turnover Taxes) of 12 December                                        (Case C-291/00)
      1996, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil
      its obligations under Article 2 of the Sixth Council                                       (2000/C 273/14)
      Directive 77/388/EEC (1) of 17 May 1977 on the harmon-
      ization of the laws of the Member States relating to              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax:                European Communities by order of the Tribunal de grande
      uniform basis of assessment, as most recently amended;            instance de Paris (Regional Court, Paris), received at the Court
                                                                        Registry on 23 June 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case
(2) order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.             of S.A. LTJ Diffusion v S.A. Sadas Vertbaudet on the following
                                                                        question:
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         Does the prohibition contained in Article 5(1) of Directive
                                                                        89/104 of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the
The exemption from turnover tax of research activities which            Member States relating to trade marks (1) only cover identical
State universities and higher-education establishments are              reproduction — with no element being added or omitted —
commissioned to carry out, pursuant to Paragraph 4(21a) of              of the sign or signs constituting a mark, or can it extend to:
the Umsatzsteuergesetz (Law on Turnover Taxes), in the
version thereof introduced by Paragraph 4(5) of the Umsatz-             (1) reproduction of the distinctive feature of a mark compo-
steuer-Änderungsgesetz (Law amending the legislation on                      sed of a number of elements?
turnover taxes) of 12 December 1996 (BGBI. 1996, Part I,
p. 1851 et seq.), is contrary to Article 2(1) of the Sixth              (2) reproduction of all the constituent elements of the mark
Directive. In the context of research activities which they are               where new elements are added?
commissioned to undertake (i.e. research projects normally
based on an agreement specifying inter alia the type and scope          (1) OJ L 40 of 11.2.1989, p. 1.
of the services and consideration to be furnished), State
universities and higher-education establishments provide ser-
vices and are thus, in principle, taxable persons within the
meaning of Article 4 of the Sixth Directive. According to
Article 5 of the directive, bodies governed by public law are
not, however, to be regarded as taxable persons in so far as
they are engaged in activities as public authorities.
                                                                        Action brought on 3 August 2000 by the Commission of
                                                                        the European Communities against the Grand-Duchy of
In undertaking research which they have been commissioned                                          Luxembourg
to carry out, State universities and higher-education establish-
ments are clearly not engaged in activities as public authorities.
                                                                                (Case C-297/00)
On the contrary, such activities are based on a private-law
commercial relationship between the university or higher-
education establishment concerned and the party by whom                                          (2000/C 273/15)
the research in question is commissioned. In the Commission’s
view, the effect of Part A of Article 13 of the Sixth Directive is      An action against the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg was
to preclude exemption from tax in respect of research which             brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-


title: Case T-360/03: Action brought on 30 October 2003 by Frischpack GmbH & Co KG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
C 304/32               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                      13.12.2003
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                Pleas in law and main arguments
—     set aside the decision of the First Board of Appeal of
      OHIM of 9 July 2003 in Case R 0576/2002-1;                           Applicant for Com-            Barilla Alimentare S.p.A.
                                                                           munity trade mark:
—     refuse to register as a Community mark No 488.940
      DAVID LLOYD in Class 25, and                                         Community trade mark          Figurative mark including the
                                                                           sought:                       words ‘SELEZIONE ORO’ and
                                                                                ‘BARILLA’ — Application No
—     order the other party or parties to pay the costs.                                                 289.405 for products in Class
                                                                                30 (pasta, flour and preparations
                                                                                made from cereals, bread, pastry
                                                                                and confectionery, yeast, baking-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                          powder, sauces).
                                                                           Proprietor of mark or         The applicant.
The pleas in law and main arguments are those already put                  sign cited in the oppo-
forward in Case T-341/03 El Corte Inglés v OHIM.                           sition proceedings:
                                                                           Mark or sign cited in         Word marks ‘ORO’ (Italian trade
The Community trade mark which is the subject of the dispute               opposition:                   mark No 307376 and inter-
is the mark ‘DAVID LLOYD’ (Application No 488.940, for                                                   national trade mark No 435773)
goods in Classes 3, 5, 25, 28, 36, 41 and 42). The applicant,                                            and ‘ORO SAIWA’ (Italian trade
the marks cited in the opposition proceedings, the proprietor                                            mark No 332.864) for products
and the decisions of the Opposition Division and the Board of                                            in Class 30.
Appeal are identical to those referred to in that case.
                                                                           Decision of the Oppo-         Opposition refused.
                                                                           sition Division:
                                                                           Decision of the Board of      Appeal dismissed.
                                                                           Appeal:
                                                                           Pleas in law:                 Incorrect application of Article
Action brought on 2 October 2003 by SAIWA S.p.A.                                                         8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/
against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                                                     94 (likelihood of confusion).
         Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
                         (Case T-344/03)
                         (2003/C 304/59)
                   (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                           Action brought on 30 October 2003 by Frischpack GmbH
                                                                           & Co KG against the Office for Harmonisation in the
                                                                                Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before                                         (Case T-360/03)
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
2 October 2003 by SAIWA S.p.A., represented by Giuseppe
Sena, Paola Tarchini, Jean-Pierre Karsenty and Martine Karsen-                                     (2003/C 304/60)
ty-Ricard, lawyers. Barilla Alimentare S.p.A. was also a party
to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of                  An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
      OHIM of 18 July 2003 in Case R 480/2002-4; order that                Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
      registration be refused in respect of Barilla’s Community            Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
      trade mark application No 289405; order the defendant                30 October 2003 by Frischpack GmbH & Co KG, Mailling
      to pay all the costs.                                                (Germany), represented by P. Bornemann, lawyer.
 ---pagebreak--- 13.12.2003             EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                       C 304/33
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                on 31 October 2003 by Antonio Milano, represented and
                                                                           defended by Stefano Scarano.
—     alter the decision in Appeal R 236/2003-2, and annul it
      in part, namely in respect of the goods ‘cheese slices in
      large packs, not intended for the final consumer’;
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
                                                                           —     annul the act of the European Commission — European
                                                                                Communities Personnel Selection Office — communi-
                                                                                cated by memorandum of 24 March 2003 and notified
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                  to the applicant on 31 March 2003, in which the selection
                                                                                board decided that the applicant’s application was inad-
                                                                                missible on the basis of the request for review made by
The trade mark applied         Three-dimensional mark in the
                                                                                Mr Milano, annul the decision of 10 February 2003 of
for:                           form of a cheese box — Appli-
                                                                                the Commission in which the selection board refused the
                               cation No 2 631 745.
                                                                                applicant admission to the oral test in open competition
                                                                                COM/A/4/02 ‘Administrators’, and annul the decision of
Goods or services con-         Goods in Class 29 (foodstuffs in                  17 July 2003 of the appointing authority in which the
cerned:                        sliced form, in particular slices of              complaint submitted by Mr Milano under Article 90(2)
                               cheese).                                          of the Staff Regulations and lodged at DG ADMIN on
                                                                                24 April 2003 with number R/187/03 was rejected;
Decision         contested     Refusal of registration by the
before the Board of            examiner.
Appeal:                                                                    —     full compensation in damages for economic and moral
                                                                                loss
Decision of the Board of       Appeal dismissed.
Appeal:
                                                                           —     recovery of costs
Grounds of action:             —     Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation
                                     (EC) No 40/94 has been
                                     infringed.
                               —     It is not to be denied that the
                                     mark has the distinctiveness
                                     necessary for registration.           Pleas and main arguments
                               —     A need to preserve avail-
                                     ability is not apparent.
                                                                           This action is brought against the decision of the selection
                                                                           board for open competition COM/A/4/02 ‘Administrators’,
                                                                           through qualifications and an oral test, with a view to
                                                                           constituting a reserve list for the recruitment of a head of
                                                                           representation in grade A3 in Rome, excluding the applicant
                                                                           from admission to the oral test in the above-mentioned
                                                                           competition.
Action brought on 31 October 2003 by Antonio Milano
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                           In particular, the ground that the applicant does not have
                        (Case T-362/03)                                    thorough knowledge of Community institutions, programmes
                                                                           and policies is contested.
                        (2003/C 304/61)
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                         In support of his arguments, the applicant claims that this
                                                                           ground is unfounded, unjustified, illogical and inconsistent.
An action against the European Commission was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities


title: Case C-454/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hessisches Landesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 24 August 2015 — Jürgen Webb-Sämann v Christopher Seagon (acting as liquidator in the insolvency of Baumarkt Praktiker DIY GmbH)

text:
               23.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 389/16

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hessisches Landesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 24 August 2015 — Jürgen Webb-Sämann v Christopher Seagon (acting as liquidator in the insolvency of Baumarkt Praktiker DIY GmbH)
   (Case C-454/15)
   (2015/C 389/17)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Hessisches Landesarbeitsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Jürgen Webb-Sämann

      Defendant: Christopher Seagon (acting as liquidator in the insolvency of Baumarkt Praktiker DIY GmbH)

      Question referred

   Is a national understanding of a rule under which outstanding salary claims which were deposited with the employer in order to be paid over to a pension fund by a particular date but which were not paid by that employer into a separate account and therefore did not come within the scope of a right to have those claims excluded from insolvency proceedings in respect of the employer’s assets (Aussonderungsrecht) pursuant to Paragraph 47 of the German Insolvency Regulation contrary to Article 8 of Directive 2008/94/EC (1) or to other EU law?

      (1)  Directive 2008/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (OJ 2008 L 283, p. 36).


title: Case C-172/01 P: Appeal brought on 20 April 2001 by International Power plc (formerly National Power plc) against the judgment delivered on 7 February 2001 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in case T-89/98 between National Association of Licensed Opencast Operators (NALOO) and Commission of the European Communities, supported by British Coal Corporation, National Power plc and PowerGen plc

text:
C 200/42               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      14.7.2001
(Second Chamber) in Case T-186/98 between Compañı́a                    Appeal brought on 20 April 2001 by International Power
Internacional de Pesca y Derivados SA (INPESCA) and the                 plc (formerly National Power plc) against the judgment
Commission of the European Communities was brought                      delivered on 7 February 2001 by the Second Chamber of
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on              the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
19 April 2001 by Compañı́a Internacional de Pesca y Deriva-            in case T-89/98 (1) between National Association of
dos SA (INPESCA), represented by M.I. Angulo Fuertes and                Licensed Opencast Operators (NALOO) and Commission
M.B. Angulo Fuertes, abogadas, with an address for service in           of the European Communities, supported by British Coal
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt & Medernach, 8-109                    Corporation, National Power plc and PowerGen plc
Mathias Hardt.
The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:                                           (Case C-172/01 P)
1.    set aside in its entirety the judgment delivered by the
      Court of First Instance on 7 February 2001, and in its
      place:                                                                                (2001/C 200/78)
      1)    declare that the ‘further observations’ filed by the
            applicant on 21 July 1999 are inadmissible;                 An appeal against the judgment delivered on 7 February 2001
      2)    declare that the plea of inadmissibility raised by the      by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
            Commission pursuant to Article 114(1) of the Rules          European Communities in case T-89/98 between National
            of Procedure of the Court of First Instance is              Association of Licensed Opencast Operators (NALOO) and
            inadmissible;                                               Commission of the European Communities, supported by
                                                                        British Coal Corporation, National Power plc and PowerGen
      3)    uphold the application made by ‘INPESCA’ for                plc, was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
            annulment of the Commission’s decision of 16 Sep-           Communities on 20 April 2001 by International Power plc
            tember 1998 refusing to grant it the Community              (formerly National Power plc), having its registered office in
            funding sought pursuant to Regulations (EC)                 London, represented by S. Ramsay, solicitor, D. Anderson QC
            Nos 4028/86 (1) of 18 December 1986 and                     and M. Chamberlain, barrister.
            1263/1999 (2) of 21 June 1999 and the Financial
            Regulation of 21 December 1977;
                                                                        The Appellant claims that the Court should:
2.    uphold all the claims made by the present appellant in its
      application in the proceedings at first instance;
                                                                        (1) set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
3.    order the Commission to pay the costs since it has acted                7 February 2001 in Case T-89/98;
      in breach of Community law.
                                                                        (2) give final judgment dismissing NALOO’s application for
                                                                              the annulment of the 1998 decision; and
Pleas in law and main arguments
—     Procedural irregularities which prejudice the rights of the       (3) order NALOO and/or the Commission to pay IP’s costs
      appellant. Article 58 of the Protocol on the Statute of the             of the proceedings in Case T-89/98 and in this case.
      Court of Justice. Since Articles 5, 7 and 8 of Regulation
      No 1263/1999 and Article 52 of Regulation
      1260/1999 (3) set out new facts and principles of law
      applicable to the action brought, they constituted ‘new
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
      pleas in law’ which should have been taken into account
      by the Court of First Instance (Article 48(2) of the Rules
      of Procedure),
                                                                        The central error in the judgment of the CFI, so far as it
—     Breach of Community law: Article 58 of the Protocol on            concerns IP, is the conclusion that the CFI and the Commission
      the Statute of the Court of Justice. Under the ‘regulatory        had, after 1994, the power to investigate NALOO’s complaint
      framework’ applicable to the action, the Commission is            relating to infringements of Article 63 CS allegedly committed
      not only perfectly well able to reconsider its 1991               during the years 1986-1990.
      decision on the basis of the ‘new and fundamental facts’
      relied upon by the appellant but is also obliged to do
      so under Article 7(7) of the Financial Regulation of              That conclusion is erroneous for two principal reasons, which
      21 December 1977 and Article 5(1) and (2) of Regulation           constitute IP’s first two pleas in law:
      (EC) No 1263/1999.
                                                                        The 1994 complaint in substance repeated a complaint
(1) OJ L 376 of 31.12.1986, p. 7.
(2) OJ L 161 of 26.6.1999, p. 54.                                       which the Commission had already decided, in 1991, not to
(3) OJ L 161 of 26.6.1999, p. 1.                                        investigate. That 1991 decision was reviewable but unre-
                                                                        viewed. In those circumstances, the Commission had no power
                                                                        to revisit its earlier decision, and to do so would have infringed
                                                                        the principle of legal certainty.
 ---pagebreak--- 14.7.2001              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 200/43
There was, in any event, no power under Article 63(1) CS                 Pleas in law and main arguments
either to investigate, in or after 1994, an allegation of
discrimination in the pre-1990 period, or to take action in
respect of it.
                                                                         BCC relies on the following grounds of appeal.
If either or both of those pleas in law is correct, it follows that
the 1998 decision was valid and that the judgment of the CFI             (1) The Court of First Instance erred in law in holding that
must be quashed. In the event that both those pleas in law are                 the 1994 Complaint was an expansion of the 1990
rejected, IP submits, in the alternative to its first two pleas:               Complaint and that therefore the Commission must be
                                                                               treated as having received a single Complaint.
that even if the Commission had the power to investigate the             (2) The Court of First Instance erred in law in holding that
1994 complaint, it was under no obligation to do so; and                       NALOO had not failed to avail itself of the legal remedies
that the 1998 decision was in any event adequately reasoned.                   available to it to ensure protection of its rights.
                                                                         (3) The Court of First Instance erred in law in holding that
(1) OJ C 234, 25.7.98, p. 36.
                                                                               an investigation of NALOO’s complaint with regard
                                                                               to the years 1986/87 to 1989/1990 was in no way
                                                                               incompatible with the principle of legal certainty.
                                                                         (4) Whether or not the 1991 Complaint and the 1994
                                                                               Complaint should be treated as a single Complaint, the
                                                                               Court of First Instance erred in law in holding that the
                                                                               matters complained of were existing infringements for
                                                                               the purposes of Article 66(7) ECSC and that the Com-
                                                                               mission was therefore empowered to act in relation to
Appeal brought on 23 April 2001 by British Coal Corpor-                        the position pre-April 1990.
ation against the judgment delivered on 7 February 2001
by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                         (5) The Court of First Instance erred in law in holding that
the European Communities in case T-89/98 (1) between                           the effect of the judgment of the Court of Justice in
National Association of Licenced Opencast Operators
                                                                               Hopkins was to empower the Commission to investigate
(NALOO) and Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                               that part of NALOO’s Complaint which alleged against
supported by British Coal Corporation, International                           BCC that it had applied unreasonable levels of royalty in
Power plc (formerly National Power plc) and PowerGen
                                                                               the years 1986/87 to 1989/90.
               (UK) plc (formerly PowerGen plc)
                                                                         (6) The Court of First Instance erred in law in holding
                        (Case C-175/01 P)                                      that since the Commission had the power to consider
                                                                               NALOO’s complaint relating to infringements alleged to
                                                                               have occurred in the years 1986/87 to 1989/90, the
                         (2001/C 200/79)                                       Commission was bound to undertake that examination.
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 7 February 2001              (7) The Court of First Instance erred in law in holding that the
by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                    Commission was empowered to adopt recommendations
European Communities in case T-89/98 between National                          under Article 66(7) in respect of alleged infringements
Association of Licensed Opencast Operators (NALOO) and                         occurring in 1986/87 to 1989/1990 and in failing to
Commission of the European Communities, supported by                           hold that, contrary to the contention of NALOO, the
British Coal Corporation, International Power plc (formerly                    Commission had no power to take a decision under
National Power plc) and PowerGen (UK) plc (formerly Power-                     Article 66(7) ECSC.
Gen plc), was brought before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities on 23 April 2001 by British Coal                    (8) The Court of First Instance erred in laws in failing to hold
Corporation, having its registered office in London, represented               that Article 65 ECSC has no application to the alleged
by D. Vaughan QC, D. Lloyd Jones QC and C. Mehta, solicitor.                   conduct of BCC in relation to the level of royalty.
The Appellant claims that the Court should:                              (9) The Court of First Instance erred in law in holding that
                                                                               the 1998 Decision was vitiated by a failure to give
(1) set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance in                   reasons.
      Case T-89/98 dated 7 February 2001;
(2) dismiss by way of final judgment NALOO’s Application
      registered with the Court of First Instance on 8 June              (1) OJ C 234, 25.7.98, p. 36.
      1998;
(3) order that NALOO and/or the Commission pay BCC’s
      costs of the proceedings in Case T-89/98 and in this case.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal, London, by order of that court dated 29 July 1997, in the case of 1. Royscot Leasing Ltd and Royscot Industrial Leasing Ltd 2. Allied Domecq plc 3. T. C. Harrison Group Ltd against Commissioners of Customs and Excise (Case C-305/97)

text:
C 318/10            1 EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                             18 . 10 . 97
the European Communities in Case T-237/95 between                           to be used by a taxable person " for the purposes of his
Fernando Carbajo Ferrero and European Parliament was                        taxable transactions ?
brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 26 August 1997 by Fernando Carbajo
Ferrero, represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure               2 . In particular, may the right to deduct be excluded:
Levi, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at Fiduciaire Myson, 30 Rue de Cessange .                        ( a ) even though the cars are essential tools of the
                                                                                business in the sense that the business by definition
The appellant claims that the Court should:                                       would not exist without the cars ( e.g. the car
                                                                                leasing business of the Royscot companies, and the
                                                                                car-leasing and car-hire businesses of the T. C.
— set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of                        Harrison group )?
     the European Communities of 12 June 1997 in Case
     T-237/95 between the same parties,
                                                                            ( b ) even though the cars are never available for
                                                                                private use by the taxable person or his staff
— accordingly, grant the form of order sought by the                              (e.g. , the car-leasing businesses of the Royscot
     applicant at first instance,                                                 companies and of the T. C. Harrison group )?
— order the defendant to pay all the costs, including                       ( c ) even though the taxable person could not carry
     those incurred at first instance .                                           on his business at all without the cars ( e.g. ,
                                                                                'demonstrator' cars acquired by a member of the
                                                                                T. C. Harrison group in its dealership business )?
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                            ( d ) even though the taxable person 's employees could
The appellant maintains all the pleas and arguments of                            not perform their duties without the cars ( e.g. ,
his action and bases the appeal on infringement of                                the travelling salesmen employed by the Allied
Community law by the Court of First Instance . It is based,                       Domecq group )?
further, on a breach of procedure inasmuch as the Court
of First Instance refused to direct the Parliament to
                                                                         . ( e ) notwithstanding ( a ), (c ) or ( d ) above, on the
produce a letter on which the action relied in order to cast
                                                                                ground that the taxable person's employees are
doubt on the impartiality of a member of the selection
board .
                                                                                permitted to make some, subsidiary, private use of
                                                                                the cars outside working hours ?
                                                                     3 . Is it material to question 2 (e ) above to consider
                                                                            whether :
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal,                  ( a ) an apportionment of the expenditure on the cars
London, by order of that court dated 29 July 1997, in the                         can be made between the business use and the
case of 1 . Royscot Leasing Ltd and Royscot Industrial                            private use ?
Leasing Ltd 2 . Allied Domecq pic 3 . T. C. Harrison
 Group Ltd against Commissioners of Customs and Excise                      ( b ) the permission to make private use of the cars is a
                        ( Case C-305/97 )                                         taxable transaction for VAT purposes because the
                          ( 97/C 318/18 )
                                                                                taxable person charges the employees a fee for that
                                                                                use ?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the               4. Did the authorization granted to Member States by
European Communities by an order of the Court of                            the second subparagraph of Article 17 ( 6 ) lapse at the
Appeal, London, dated 29 July 1997, which was received                      end of the four year period referred to in the first
at the Court Registry on 26 August 1997, for a                              subparagraph ?
preliminary ruling in the case of 1 . Royscot Leasing Ltd
and Royscot Industrial Leasing Ltd 2 . Allied Domecq pic
3 . T. C. Harrison Group Ltd against Commissioners of                (') Second Council Directive 67/228/EEC of 11 April 1967 on the
Customs and Excise on the following questions:                             harmonization of legislation of Member States concerning
                                                                           turnover taxes, structure and procedures for application of the
                                                                           common system of value added tax ( OT 71 , 14 . 4 . 1967,
1 . Did Article 11 ( 4 ) of the second Council Directive of                p. 1303 ).
     11 April 1967 ( ! ) authorize Member States to                  ( 2 ) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
                                                                           harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
     introduce or retain, and does the second subparagraph                 turnover taxes — common system of value added tax: uniform
     of Article 17 ( 6 ) of the sixth Council Directive of                 basis of assessment ( OJ L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p. 1 ).
     17 May 1977 (2 ) authorize Member States to retain,
     national laws which exclude, without limit, the right
     to deduct VAT payable on the purchase of motor cars


title: Case T-753/14: Judgment of the General Court of 25 May 2016 — Ice Mountain Ibiza v EUIPO — Etyam (ocean beach club ibiza) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark ocean beach club ibiza — Earlier national figurative and word marks ocean drive Ibiza-hotel and OCEAN THE GROUP — Annulment of the earlier mark on which the contested decision was based — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               4.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/29

         Judgment of the General Court of 25 May 2016 — Ice Mountain Ibiza v EUIPO — Etyam (ocean beach club ibiza)
   (Case T-753/14) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark ocean beach club ibiza - Earlier national figurative and word marks ocean drive Ibiza-hotel and OCEAN THE GROUP - Annulment of the earlier mark on which the contested decision was based - No need to adjudicate))
   (2016/C 243/30)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Ice Mountain Ibiza, SL (San Antonio, Spain) (represented by: J. L. Gracia Albero, F. Miazzetto and E. Cebollero González, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Etyam, SL (Ibiza, Spain)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 July 2014 (Case R 2293/2013-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Etyam and Ice Mountain Ibiza

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the action;

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2015.


title: Case C-383/06 to C-385/06: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 March 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State, Netherlands) — Vereniging Nationaal Overlegorgaan Sociale Werkvoorziening (C-383/06), Gemeente Rotterdam (C-384/06) v Minister van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid, and Sociaal Economische Samenwerking West-Brabant (C-385/06) v Algemene Directie voor de Arbeidsvoorziening (Structural Funds — Article 23(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 — Withdrawal and recovery of Community financial aid — Article 249 EC — Protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty)

text:
               9.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 116/6

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 March 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State, Netherlands) — Vereniging Nationaal Overlegorgaan Sociale Werkvoorziening (C-383/06), Gemeente Rotterdam (C-384/06) v Minister van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid, and Sociaal Economische Samenwerking West-Brabant (C-385/06) v Algemene Directie voor de Arbeidsvoorziening
   (Case C-383/06 to C-385/06) (1)

   (Structural Funds - Article 23(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 - Withdrawal and recovery of Community financial aid - Article 249 EC - Protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty)
   (2008/C 116/10)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Raad van State
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Vereniging Nationaal Overlegorgaan Sociale Werkvoorziening (C-383/06), Gemeente Rotterdam (C-384/06), Sociaal Economische Samenwerking West-Brabant (C-385/06)

      Defendants: Minister van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid, Algemene Directie voor de Arbeidsvoorziening
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Raad van State, Netherlands Interpretation of Article 23(1) of Council Regulation EEC No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988 laying down provisions for implementing Regulation No 2052/88 (EEC) as regards coordination of the activities of the different Structural Funds between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments — Withdrawal and recovery of Community financial aid — Articles 10 and 249 EC — Application of general principles of Community law
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 23(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988 laying down provisions for implementing Regulation No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the different Structural Funds between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2082/93 of 20 July 1993 requires the Member States to recover any amounts lost as a result of an irregularity or negligence without there being any need for authority to do so under national law;

               2.

               The recovery of amounts lost as a result of an irregularity or negligence must be carried out on the basis of Article 23(1) of Regulation No 4253/88, as amended by Regulation No 2082/93, and in accordance with the detailed rules laid down in national law, on condition that the application of that law does not hinder the application or the effectiveness of Community law and does not make it impossible in practice to recover the sums improperly granted. It is for the national court to ensure the full application of Community law by setting aside or, in so far as necessary, interpreting a national rule such as the General Statute on administrative law (Algemene wet bestuursrecht) which prevents such application. The national court may apply the Community law principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations when assessing the conduct of both the recipient of the amounts lost and the administrative authority, on condition that full account is taken of the interests of the European Community. The fact that the recipient of the funds is a public-law person is irrelevant in that regard.

      (1)  OJ C 310, 16.12.2006.


title: Action brought on 14 April 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic (Case C-139/97)

text:
No C 181 /4           EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          14 . 6 . 97
     States and have as their object and effect the                    Republic having brought into force the necessary
     prevention, restriction or distortion of competition              provisions in order to comply with the Directive referred
     within the common market ?                                        to in the Commission's application .
                                                                       (') OJ No L 45 , 17 . 2 . 1994 , p . 1 .
4 . What effects any finding of incompatibility in                     ( 2 ) OJ No L 297, 13 . 10 . 1992 , p . 16 .
     accordance with Question 3 may have on the
     corresponding clauses of the ' all-embracing' guarantee
     agreements and on the agreements themselves
     concluded ' downstream' by individual banks, since, as
     a group, the banks belonging to the ABI may be
     regarded, within the meaning and for the purposes of
     Article 86 of the Treaty, as holding a joint dominant             Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht
     position in the national credit market, whose specific            Linz, by order of that court of 26 March 1997, in the case
     application of the rules in question is regarded as an                 of Walter Rechberger and Others v. Republic of Austria
     abuse ?                                                                                ( Case C-140/97 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 181 /08 )
(') Italian Banking Association .
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by an order of the Landesgericht
                                                                       ( Regional Court) Linz of 26 March 1997, which was
                                                                       received at the Court Registry on 15 April 1997, for a
                                                                       preliminary ruling in the case of Walter Rechberger and
Action brought on 14 April 1997 by the Commission of                   Others v. Republic of Austria on the following questions :
   the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                         ( Case C-139/97 )                              1 . Does the protective purpose of Article 7 of Council
                                                                              Directive 90/314/EEC (') of 13 June 1990 on package
                           ( 97/C 181 /07 )                                   travel , package holidays and package tours
                                                                               ( hereinafter 'the Directive ') extend also to trips for
                                                                              which, on the basis of the contract, the main
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before                     contracting party must pay:
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
14 April 1997 by the Commission of the European                                ( a ) as a single traveller, in addition to the airport
Communities, represented by Paolo Stancanelli , of its                               security charge ( departure tax ), only a single room
Legal Service, acting as Agent, assisted by Massimo                                  supplement, or
Merola, of the Rome Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of                        ( b ) where accompanied by at least one additional
its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg .                                        passenger paying the full price, only the airport
                                                                                security charge ( departure tax ),
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                               while he does not have to pay anything in respect of
                                                                               the flight and accommodation in a double room ?
— find and declare that, by failing to adopt the laws,
     regulations or administrative provisions necessary to             2 . Do such trips also fall within the scope of the
     comply with Commission Directive 94/2/EC (') of                           Directive where they are offered by the highest
     21 January 1994 implementing Council 92/75/EEC ( 2 )                      circulation daily paper of a Member State, exclusively
     with regard to energy labelling of household electric                     for its subscribers, as a ' gift' in an anti-competitive
     freezers and their combinations, the Italian Republic                     advertising campaign ?
     has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive,
                                                                               If Questions 1 and 2 are to be answered in the
                                                                               affirmative :
— order the Italian Republic to pay the costs .
                                                                        3 . Has Article 7 of the Directive been transposed within
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                            the period fixed, where the national rules announced
                                                                               on 15 November 1994 were to be applied only to
                                                                               package holidays booked after 1 January 1995 with a
Under Article 189 of the EC Treaty, according to which a                       fixed departure date of 1 May 1995 at the earliest,
directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved,                   and indeed
upon each Member State to which it is addressed,
Member States are required to observe the time-limits laid                     ( a ) in view of the fact that Austria was part of the
down in directives for their transposition. That time-limit                          European Economic Area from 1 January 1994
expired on 31 December 1994 without the Italian                                      and


title: Case T-582/16: Order of the General Court of 22 June 2017 — Vankerckhoven-Kahmann v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Career reconstruction — Refusal to promote — Inter-institutional transfer — Classification in grade — Request within the meaning of Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations — Reasonable period — Inadmissible)

text:
               14.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/22

         Order of the General Court of 22 June 2017 — Vankerckhoven-Kahmann v Commission
   (Case T-582/16) (1)

   ((Civil service - Officials - Career reconstruction - Refusal to promote - Inter-institutional transfer - Classification in grade - Request within the meaning of Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations - Reasonable period - Inadmissible))
   (2017/C 269/32)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Monique Vankerckhoven-Kahmann (Enghien, Belgium) (represented by: N. Lhoëst, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by G. Berscheid and C. Berardis-Kayser and subsequently by G. Berscheid and L. Radu Bouyon, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action brought under Article 270 TFEU, seeking annulment, first, of the Commission’s decision of 17 April 2015 refusing to re-grade the applicant on her transfer and, secondly, of the Commission’s decision of 9 November 2015 rejecting her complaint lodged on 17 July 2015.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Monique Vankerckhoven-Kahmann is ordered to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 145, 25.4.2016 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under number F-11/15 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).


title: Case C-69/08: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 July 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Napoli — Sezione Lavoro (Italy)) — Raffaello Visciano v Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS) (Social policy — Protection of workers — Insolvency of employer — Directive 80/987/EEC — Obligation to pay all outstanding claims up to a pre-established ceiling — Nature of an employee’s claims against a guarantee institution — Limitation period)

text:
               12.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/9

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 July 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Napoli — Sezione Lavoro (Italy)) — Raffaello Visciano v Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS)
   (Case C-69/08) (1)

   (Social policy - Protection of workers - Insolvency of employer - Directive 80/987/EEC - Obligation to pay all outstanding claims up to a pre-established ceiling - Nature of an employee’s claims against a guarantee institution - Limitation period)
   2009/C 220/13
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Napoli — Sezione Lavoro

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Raffaello Visciano

      Defendant: Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS)

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale di Napoli Sezione Lavoro –Interpretation of Articles 3 and 4 of Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (OJ 1980 L 283, p. 23) — Guarantee corresponding to the last three months’ salary under the employment contract, subject to a maximum amount fixed in advance — Deduction from the compensation paid of advances on salary received from the employer — National legislation permitting the same benefit to be given a different legal classification according to the party required to pay that benefit and also permitting a change in the limitation period for bringing an action

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Articles 3 and 4 of Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer do not preclude national legislation which allows employees’ outstanding claims to be classified as ‘social security benefits’ where they are paid by a guarantee institution.

               2.

               Directive 80/987 does not preclude national legislation which uses the employee’s initial claim relating to pay merely as a basis of comparison for the determination of the benefit to be guaranteed by the intervention of a guarantee fund.

               3.

               In the context of an application by an employee for payment by a guarantee fund of outstanding claims relating to pay, Directive 80/987 does not preclude the application of a limitation period of one year (principle of equivalence). However, it is for the national court to examine whether it is framed in such a way as to render impossible in practice or excessively difficult the exercise of the rights recognised by Community law (principle of effectiveness).

      (1)  OJ C 107, 26.4.2008.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 March 2002 in Case T-3/02: Schlüsselverlag J. S. Moser GmbH and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Control of concentrations — Action for a declaration of failure to act — Definition of a position — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
C 156/26               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        29.6.2002
— application for annulment of Commission Decision                        1.    The application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.
C (2001) 1380 of 2 July 2001 withdrawing the financial
assistance previously granted to the applicant by the European
Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (Guidance Section),              2.    The applicants shall pay the costs.
the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of:
B. Vesterdorf, President, N. Forwood and H. Legal, Judges;
H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 21 March 2002, the
operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                          (1) OJ C 84 of 6.4.2002.
1.    The application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible;
2.    The applicant is ordered to pay its own costs and those of the
      defendant.
(1) OJ C 317 of 10.11.2001.
                                                                          ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
                                                                                INSTANCE
                                                                                of 18 March 2002
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                in Case T-21/02 R: Giuseppe Atzeni and Others v Com-
                                                                                mission of the European Communities
                        of 11 March 2002
                                                                          (Procedure for interim relief — State aid — Time-limit for
in Case T-3/02: Schlüsselverlag J. S. Moser GmbH and                      bringing proceedings — Admissibility of the action in the
  Others v Commission of the European Communities (1)                                              main proceedings)
(Control of concentrations — Action for a declaration of
failure to act — Definition of a position — Manifest                                                (2002/C 156/52)
                           inadmissibility)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                          (2002/C 156/51)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                          In Case T-21/02 R: Giuseppe Atzeni, residing at Serdiana
                                                                          (Italy), and 77 others, represented by G. Dore and F. Ciulli,
In Case T-3/02, Schlüsselverlag J.S. Moser GmbH, established              lawyers, v Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
in Innsbruck (Austria), J. Wimmer Medien GmbH & Co. KG,                   D. Triantafyllou) — application for suspension of operation of
established in Linz (Austria), Styria Medien AG, established              Commission Decision 97/612/EC of 16 April 1997 on aid
in Graz (Austria), Zeitungs- und Verlags-Gesellschaft mbH,                granted by the Region of Sardinia, Italy, in the agriculture
established in Bregenz (Austria), Eugen Ruß Vorarlberger                  sector (OJ 1997 L 248, p. 27) — the President of the Court of
Zeitungsverlag und Druckerei GmbH, established in Schwarz-                First Instance made an order on 18 March 2002, the operative
ach (Austria), ‘Die Presse’ Verlags-Gesellschaft mbH, established         part of which is as follows:
in Vienna (Austria), ‘Salzburger Nachrichten’ Verlags-Gesell-
schaft mbH & Co. KG, established in Salzburg (Austria),
represented by M. Krüger, lawyer, Linz, v Commission of the               1.    The application for interim measures is dismissed.
European Communities (Agent: K. Wiedner): Application for a
declaration that, by unlawfully failing to adopt a decision on
the compatibility of a concentration with the common market,              2.    The costs are reserved.
the defendant has failed to act, the Court of First Instance
(Third Chamber), composed of: M. Jaeger, President, K. Lenaerts
and J. Azizi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on ,
the operative part of which is as follows:


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 November 2004 in Joined Cases C-10/02 and C-11/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Puglia): Anna Fascicolo and Others, Enzo De Benedictis and Others v Regione Puglia (C-10/02) and Grazia Berardi and Others, Lucia Vaira and Others v Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale BA/4 and Others (C-11/02) (Free movement of doctors — Directives 86/457/EEC and 93/16/EEC — Recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications — Requirement that Member States should make the exercise of the activities of general practitioner under their national social security scheme conditional on possession of a specific diploma — Acquired rights — Whether evidence of authorisation obtained before1 January 1995 is equivalent to the specific training diploma — Drawing up of the list of general practitioners in order to fill posts available in a region on the basis of the qualifications possessed)

text:
               8.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/1

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 18 November 2004
   in Joined Cases C-10/02 and C-11/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Puglia): Anna Fascicolo and Others, Enzo De Benedictis and Others v Regione Puglia (C-10/02) and Grazia Berardi and Others, Lucia Vaira and Others v Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale BA/4 and Others (C-11/02) (1)

   (Free movement of doctors - Directives 86/457/EEC and 93/16/EEC - Recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications - Requirement that Member States should make the exercise of the activities of general practitioner under their national social security scheme conditional on possession of a specific diploma - Acquired rights - Whether evidence of authorisation obtained before 1 January 1995 is equivalent to the specific training diploma - Drawing up of the list of general practitioners in order to fill posts available in a region on the basis of the qualifications possessed)
   (2005/C 6/01)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Joined Cases C-10/02 and C-11/02: references for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Puglia (Italy), made by decisions of 10 October 2001, received at the Court on 15 January 2002, in the proceedings between Anna Fascicolo and Others, Enzo De Benedictis and Others v Regione Puglia, Maria Paciolla, Assessorato alla Sanità e Servizi Sociali della Regione Puglia, Coordinatore del Settore Sanità, Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale BR/1, Felicia Galietti and Others., Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale BA/4, Madia Evangelina Magrì, Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale BA/1, Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale BA/3 (C-10/02), and Grazia Berardi and Others, Lucia Vaira and Others, v Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale BA/4, Angelo Michele Cea, Scipione De Mola, Francesco d'Argento, Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale FG/2, Antonella Battista and Others, Nicola Brunetti andOthers, Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale BA/3, Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale FG/3, Erasmo Fiorentino (C-11/02) — the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta, K. Lenaerts, S. von Bahr and K. Schiemann (Rapporteur), Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; Múgica Arzamendi, Principal Administrator, has given a judgment on 18 November 2004, in which it has ruled:

               1.

               Article 36(2) of Council Directive 93/16/EEC of 5 April 1993 to facilitate the free movement of doctors and the mutual recognition of their diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications does not require the Member States to consider authorisation obtained before 1 January 1995 to carry on the profession of general medical practitioner under the national health system to be equivalent to obtaining the certificate of specific training in general medical practice for the purpose of access to general practitioner posts.

               2.

               It is not contrary to Article 36(2) of Directive 93/16 for Member States to provide for doctors in possession of both the certificate of specific training in general medical practice and authorisation on 31 December 1994 to practise as general practitioners under the national health system:

                           —

                           a pool of reserved posts more extensive than that provided either for doctors in possession of that certificate or for doctors who have been granted authorisation, by permitting them to compete in those two classes of reserved posts simultaneously;

                           —

                           yet more advantageous treatment by awarding them, when they compete for the quota of posts reserved to doctors authorised on 31 December 1999 to practise the profession, the number of additional points attributed on account of their having obtained that certificate.

      (1)   OJ C 68 of 16.3.2002.