title: Case T-132/02: Action brought on 18 April 2002 by Distribuidora Vizcaína de Papeles Sociedad Limitada against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 144/62               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     15.6.2002
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             explained the very difficult position in which it found itself to
                                                                        the Commission and the crisis situation should have induced
                                                                        the Commission to impose lower fines.
—     annul the Commission’s decision of 20 December 2001
      relating to a procedure under Article 81 of the EC Treaty
      and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COM P/E-1/
      36.212 — photocopying paper);                                     (1) OJ 1996 C 207, p. 4.
—     substantially reduce the amount of the fine imposed by
      the Commission;
—     order the Commission to pay all the costs.
                                                                        Action brought on 18 April 2002 by Distribuidora Vizcaı́-
                                                                        na de Papeles Sociedad Limitada against the Commission
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                         of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-132/02)
By the contested decision, the Commission found that the
applicant and 10 other undertakings had infringed Article
81(1) of the EC Treaty and Article 53(1) of the EEA Agreement                                  (2002/C 144/120)
by taking part in a number of agreements and concerted
practices in the photocopying paper sector whereby they
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
agreed on price increases, allocated sales quotas and fixed
market shares, and put in place a mechanism enabling them
to monitor implementation of these restrictive agreements.
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
The applicant argues that the Commission made a manifest                European Communities on 18 April 2002 by Distribuidora
error of assessment in claiming that it participated in the cartel      Vizcaı́na de Papeles Sociedad Limitada established in Derio
from May 1992 to September 1995. The applicant accepts                  (Vizcaya, Spain), represented by Eduardo Pérez Medrano and
that it participated from October 1993 to July 1995 only. The           Ignacio Delgado González.
Commission has not shown that the applicant participated in
the cartel before October 1993 and after July 1995. The
decision should therefore be annulled.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
In the alternative, the applicant requests a reduction in the fine      —     annul Decision C(2001) 4573 final CORR of 20 Decem-
imposed. It argues that given that it only was a party to the                 ber 2001 in Case COMP/E-1/36.212 — carbonless copy
infringement during the abovementioned period, the amount                     paper, in so far as it imputes to the applicant, as well as
of the fine should be reduced by 48 %.                                        participation in collusive arrangements relating to the
                                                                              Spanish market, membership of a cartel which covered
                                                                              the whole of the common market and the EEA, and,
                                                                              in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed by the
Furthermore, it claims that the fine is disproportionate in                   Commission;
relation to its liability for the infringement, and that the
Commission misapplied the Commission notice on the non-                 —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
imposition or reduction of fines in cartel cases (1).
The applicant’s participation should have resulted in the               Pleas in law and main arguments
Commission proposing a 75 % reduction in the fine.
                                                                        This action is directed against the same Commission decision
Finally, the applicant argues that the Commission did not take          as that which is challenged in Case T-109/02 Bolloré v
into account the defensive nature of the cartel. The applicant          Commission (1).
 ---pagebreak--- 15.6.2002              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 144/63
In support of its claims, the applicant maintains that the                       Removal from the register of Case T-30/98 (1)
Commission infringed both Article 81 of the EC Treaty and
Article 53 of the EEA Agreement, since it failed to take into                                    (2002/C 144/122)
account, or incorrectly assessed, the nature and actions of the
applicant undertaking and did not establish that the applicant
participated in the alleged meetings or the alleged collusive                               (Language of the Case: English)
arrangements within the Spanish market or in the agreements
and concerted practices as a whole, which are described in the
contested decision.
                                                                          By order of 16 January 2002 the President of the First Chamber
                                                                          of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                          ordered the removal from the register of Case T-30/98:
It is stated in that regard that the applicant is a small family-         Dr. Peter Stott v Conseil de l’Union européenne and Com-
style undertaking which distributes and processes carbonless              mission of the European Communities.
copy paper and that it neither manufactured nor exported to
markets other than the Spanish market during the period of
the infringement. Furthermore, attention is drawn to its                  (1) OJ C 184 of 13.6.1998.
modest economic size and the limited scale of its business as
compared with the other parties alleged to be involved.
As regards the fine imposed, it is submitted that quantification
thereof involved:
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-370/00 (1)
—     breach of the principles of proportionality and equal
      treatment;                                                                                (2002/C 144/123)
—     incorrect determination of the period of infringement;                                (Language of the Case: English)
—     failure to take account of the mitigating circumstances
      attendant upon the applicant’s situation.
                                                                          By order of 5 February 2002 the President of the Third
                                                                          Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                          Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
(1) Not yet published in the Official Journal.                            T-370/00: N.V. Master Foods S. A. v Commission of the
                                                                          European Communities.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 79 of 10.3.2001.
        Removal from the register of Case T-113/97 (1)
                        (2002/C 144/121)                                         Removal from the register of Case T-42/01 (1)
                                                                                (2002/C 144/124)
                   (Language of the Case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: French)
By order of 21 February 2002 the President of the First
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                          By order of 24 January 2002 the President of the First Chamber
Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                          of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
T-113/97: Pierre Tomarchio v the Court of Auditors of the
                                                                          ordered the removal from the register of Case T-42/01:
European Communities.
                                                                          Syndicat des employés, techniciens et cadres de la F.G.T.B. v
                                                                          Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 199 of 28.6.1997.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 118 of 21.4.2001.


title: Case C-58/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck by order of that court of 15 February 2000 in the case of Leopold Hein against Pensionsversicherungsanstalt der Arbeiter

text:
C 135/4                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      13.5.2000
Action brought on 16 February 2000 by the Commission                      Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesge-
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic                  richt Innsbruck by order of that court of 15 February
                                                                          2000 in the case of Leopold Hein against Pensions-
                                                                                versicherungsanstalt der Arbeiter
                          (Case C-49/00)
                                                                                (Case C-58/00)
                         (2000/C 135/05)
                                                                                (2000/C 135/06)
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Court of Justice on 16 February 2000 by the Commission of                 European Communities by order of the Oberlandesgericht
the European Communities, represented by Enrico Traversa,                 (Higher Regional Court) Innsbruck of 15 February 2000,
Legal Adviser, and Nicola Yerrell, of its Legal Service, acting as        received at the Court Registry on 23 February 2000, for a
Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office           preliminary ruling in the case of Leopold Hein against
of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                    Pensionversicherungsanstalt der Arbeiter (Employees’ Pension
                                                                          Insurance Institution) on the following question:
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          Is Article 10a of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) of
                                                                          14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to
(a) Declare that:                                                         employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members
                                                                          of their families moving within the Community, as amended
    — by failing to require employers to evaluate all health              and updated by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of
         and safety risks existing in the work place,                     2 June 1983, in conjunction with Annex IIa inserted by
                                                                          Council Regulation (EEC) No 1247/92 of 30 April 1992(2), to
    — by allowing employers to decide whether or not to                   be interpreted as meaning that the care allowance under
         enlist external services for the adoption of protective          the Bundespflegegeldgesetz (federal care-allowance law) falls
         and preventive measures when the skills available                within the scope of that provision and is therefore a special
         within the undertaking are insufficient,                         non-contributory benefit within the meaning of Article 4(2a)
                                                                          of that regulation, with the result that the position of a person,
    — by failing to define the capabilities and aptitudes which           such as the applicant, who, after 1 June 1992, satisfied the
         the persons responsible for protective and preventive            conditions for the award of that benefit is governed exclusively
         measures against occupational risks to workers’ health           by the system of coordination established by the said Article
         and safety must possess,                                         10a?
    the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under       (1) OJ 1971 L 149, p. 2.
    Article 6(3)(a) and 7(3), (5) and (8) of Council Directive            (2) OJ 1992 L 136, p. 1.
    89/391/EEC (1) of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of
    measures to encourage improvements in the safety and
    health of workers at work;
(b) Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverwal-
                                                                          tungsgericht by order of 18 January 2000 in the case of
                                                                          1. Land Baden-Württemberg v Günther Schilling, the
Contentions and principal arguments adduced in support                    Oberbundesanwalt beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht par-
                                                                          ticipating in the proceedings and 2. Bezirksregierung
The Commission considers that the Italian legislation                     Lüneburg v Hans-Otto Nehring, the Oberbundesanwalt
implementing Directive 89/391/EEC is not sufficient to fulfil             beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht participating in the pro-
certain obligations imposed on the Member States by that                                               ceedings
directive. In particular, the Commission criticises the Italian
Republic for failing correctly and fully to give effect to the                                      (Case C-63/00)
following provisions of the directive:
                                                                                (2000/C 135/07)
— Article 6(3)(a);                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                          European Communities by order of 18 January 2000 by
— Article 7(3);                                                           the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal Administrative Court),
                                                                          which was received at the Court Registry on 28 February
— Article 7(5) and (8).                                                   2000, for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Article
                                                                          10(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 (1), as amended by
                                                                          Regulation (EEC) No 1648/95 (2): in the case of 1. Land Baden-
(1) OJ L 183 of 29.6.1989, p. 1.                                          Württemberg v Günther Schilling, the Oberbundesanwalt beim
                                                                          Bundesverwaltungsgericht participating in the proceedings and
                                                                          2. Bezirksregierung Lüneburg v Hans-Otto Nehring participat-
                                                                          ing in the proceedings on the following question:


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 April 1999 in Case C-224/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Erich Ciola v Land Vorarlberg (Free movement of services - Restriction - Moorings - Restriction for boat-owners resident in another Member State)

text:
C 204/10                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           17.7.1999
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        (Second Chamber)                                                             (Fifth Chamber)
                         of 29 April 1999
                                                                                of 29 April 1999
in Case C-224/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Erich Ciola v Land                       in Case C-267/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling
                            Vorarlberg(1)                                  from the Cour Supérieure de Justice [Luxembourg]):
                                                                           Éric Coursier v Fortis Bank SA, Martine Coursier, née
                                                                                Bellami (1)
(Free movement of services — Restriction — Moorings —
Restriction for boat-owners resident in another Member
                                State)                                     (Brussels Convention — Enforcement of decisions — Article
                                                                           31 — Enforceability of a decision — Collective proceedings
                                                                                for the discharge of debts)
                          (1999/C 204/18)
                                                                                (1999/C 204/19)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           In Case C-267/97: reference to the Court under the Protocol
                                                                           of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice of
In Case C-224/97, Reference to the Court under Article 177                 the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the
of the EC Treaty by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof, Austria, for a             Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters by
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                  the Cour Supérieure de Justice (Luxembourg) for a preliminary
court between Erich Ciola and Land Vorarlberg — on the                     ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
interpretation of Articles 59 to 65 in conjunction with Article            Éric Coursier and Fortis Bank SA, Martine Coursier, née Bellami
5 of the EC Treaty and Article 2 of the Act concerning the                 — on the interpretation of the first paragraph of Article 31 of
conditions of accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic           the abovementioned Convention of 27 September 1968 (OJ
of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments to                1975 L 204, p. 28), as amended by the Convention of 9
the Treaties on which the European Union is founded (OJ                    October 1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark,
1994 C 241, p. 21, and OJ 1995 L 1, p. 1) — the Court                      Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
(Second Chamber), composed of: G. Hirsch (Rapporteur),                     Ireland (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 1), by the Convention of 25
President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen and K.M. Ioannou,                   October 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic Republic (OJ
Judges; Advocate General; J. Mischo; H.A. Rühl, Principal                  1982 L 388, p. 1) and by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                  the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese
29 April 1999, in which it held that:                                      Republic (OJ 1989 L 285, p. 1) — the Court (Fifth Chamber),
                                                                           composed of J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber,
1. Article 59 of the EC Treaty must be interpreted as precluding a         P. Jann, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann and D.A.O. Ed-
    Member State from prohibiting the manager of a boat harbour,           ward (Rapporteur), Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate General;
    on pain of prosecution, from renting moorings in excess of a           D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Regis-
    specified quota to boat-owners who are resident in other Member        trar, has given a judgment on 29 April 1999, in which it has
    States.                                                                ruled:
2. A prohibition which is contrary to the freedom to provide services,
    laid down before the accession of a Member State to the European       The term ‘enforceable’ in the first paragraph of Article 31 of the
    Union not by a general abstract rule but by a specific                 Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforce-
    individual administrative decision that has become final, must be      ment of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, as amended by
    disregarded when assessing the validity of a fine imposed for          the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom
    failure to comply with that prohibition after the date of accession.   of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
                                                                           Northern Ireland, by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the
                                                                           Accession of the Hellenic Republic and by the Convention of 26 May
                                                                           1989 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese
(1) OJ C 228 of 26.7.1997.                                                 Republic, is to be interpreted as referring solely to the enforceability,
                                                                           in formal terms, of foreign decisions and not to the circumstances in
                                                                           which such decisions may be executed in the State of origin. It is for
                                                                           the court of the State in which enforcement is sought, in appeal
                                                                           proceedings brought under Article 36 of the Brussels Convention, to


title: Case T-362/14: Order of the General Court of 26 May 2016 — REWE-Zentral v EUIPO — Vicente Gandía Pla (MY PLANET) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               25.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/43

         Order of the General Court of 26 May 2016 — REWE-Zentral v EUIPO — Vicente Gandía Pla (MY PLANET)
   (Case T-362/14) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate))
   (2016/C 270/49)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: REWE-Zentral AG (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: M Kinkeldey, S. Brandstätter and A. Wagner, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: I. P. Harrington and P. Bullock, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: Vicente Gandía Pla, SA (Chiva, Spain)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 March 2014 (Case R 201/2013-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Vicente Gandía PIa SA and REWE-Zentral AG.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               REWE-Zentral AG is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 261, 11.8.2014.


title: Judgment of the Court of 13 March 2001 in Case C-379/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Kiel, Germany): PreussenElektra AG v Schleswag AG (Electricity — Renewable sources of energy — National legislation requiring electricity supply undertakings to purchase electricity at minimum prices and apportioning the resulting costs between those undertakings and upstream network operators — State aid — Compatibility with the free movement of goods)

text:
C 173/18                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          16.6.2001
1.     Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period,    1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and
       the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to           administrative provisions necessary in order to comply with the
       comply with European Parliament and Council Directive                      obligations laid down in Article 5(4) and (6), and
       97/52/EC of 13 October 1997 amending Directives                            Article 10(1), in conjunction with Annex II A, Annex III 1,
       92/50/EEC, 93/36/EEC and 93/37/EEC concerning the                          point 3, and Annex V 4(e), to Council Directive 91/676/EEC
       coordination of procedures for the award of public service                 of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters
       contracts, public supply contracts and public works contracts              against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources,
       respectively, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obli-           the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its
       gations under that directive;                                              obligations under that directive;
2.     Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.                         2.    Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.
(1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 13 March 2001
                           (Third Chamber)
                                                                            in Case C-379/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                            the Landgericht Kiel, Germany): PreussenElektra AG v
                           of 8 March 2001                                                           Schleswag AG (1)
in Case C-266/00: Commission of the European Communi-                       (Electricity — Renewable sources of energy — National
             ties v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)                           legislation requiring electricity supply undertakings to pur-
                                                                            chase electricity at minimum prices and apportioning the
                                                                            resulting costs between those undertakings and upstream
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                      network operators — State aid — Compatibility with the
                        Directive 91/676/EEC)                                                    free movement of goods)
                            (2001/C 173/30)                                                           (2001/C 173/31)
                      (Language of the case: French)                                           (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     in the European Court Reports)                                            in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-266/00: Commission of the European Communities                    In Case C-379/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
(Agents: M. Nolin) v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Agents:                     the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Landgericht Kiel,
P. Steinmetz) — application for a declaration that, by failing              Germany, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions            before that court between PreussenElektra AG and Schleswag
necessary to comply with Article 5(4) and (6) and Article 10(1),            AG in the presence of Windpark Reussenköge III GmbH and
in conjunction with Annex II A, Annex III 1, point 3, and                   Land Schleswig-Holstein — on the interpretation of Article 30
Annex V 4(e) to Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December                 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 28 EC),
1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution                  Article 92 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87
caused by nitrates from agricultural sources (OJ 1991 L 375,                EC) and Article 93(3) of the EC Treaty (now Article 88(3) EC),
p. 1), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its               — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President,
obligations under that directive — the Court (Third Chamber),               C. Gulmann, M. Wathelet and V. Skouris (Presidents of
composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber,                          Chambers), D.A.O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann, L. Sevón
J.-P. Puissochet and F. Macken (Rapporteur), Judges; L.A. Geel-             and R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate
hoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a                    General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
judgment on 8 March 2001, in which it:                                      has given a judgment on 13 March 2001, in which it has ruled:
 ---pagebreak--- 16.6.2001                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 173/19
1.    Statutory provisions of a Member State which, first, require          and of Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
      private electricity supply undertakings to purchase electricity       Article 49 EC) and Article 60 of the EC Treaty (now Article 50
      produced in their area of supply from renewable energy sources        EC) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward
      at minimum prices higher than the real economic value of that         (Rapporteur), acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber,
      type of electricity, and, second, distribute the financial burden     J.-P. Puissochet and L. Sevón, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate
      resulting from that obligation between those electricity supply       General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
      undertakings and upstream private electricity network operators       has given a judgment on 15 March 2001, in which it has
      do not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 92(1)       ruled:
      of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87(1) EC).
                                                                            Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC)
2.    In the current state of Community law concerning the electricity      and Article 60 of the EC Treaty (now Article 50 EC) do not preclude
      market, such provisions are not incompatible with Article 30          a Member State from requiring an undertaking established in another
      of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 28 EC).               Member State which provides services in the territory of the first State
                                                                            to pay its workers the minimum remuneration fixed by the national
                                                                            rules of that State. The application of such rules might, however,
(1) OJ C 397 of 19.12.1998.                                                 prove to be disproportionate where the workers involved are employees
                                                                            of an undertaking established in a frontier region who are required to
                                                                            carry out, on a part-time basis and for brief periods, a part of their
                                                                            work in the territory of one, or even several, Member States other
                                                                            than that in which the undertaking is established. It is consequently
                                                                            for the competent authorities of the host Member State to establish
                                                                            whether, and if so to what extent, application of national rules
                                                                            imposing a minimum wage on such an undertaking is necessary and
                                                                            proportionate in order to ensure the protection of the workers
                                                                            concerned.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                            (1) OJ C 209 of 4.7.1998.
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                          of 15 March 2001
in Case C-165/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal Correctionnel d’Arlon, Belgium): André
    Mazzoleni v Inter Surveillance Assistance SARL (1)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Freedom to provide services — Temporary deployment of                                                (Fifth Chamber)
workers for performance of a contract — Directive 96/71/EC
                 — Guaranteed minimum wage)
                                                                                of 15 March 2001
                           (2001/C 173/32)
                                                                            in Case C-265/99: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v French Republic (1)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                            (Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 95
                                                                            of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 90 EC) —
                                                                                Tax on motor vehicles)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (2001/C 173/33)
In Case C-165/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunal                                            (Language of the case: French)
Correctionnel d’Arlon (Criminal Court, Arlon), Belgium, for a
preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings pending before
that court against André Mazzoleni, and Inter Surveillance                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Assistance SARL, as the party civilly liable, third parties: Éric                             in the European Court Reports)
Guillaume and Others — on the interpretation of Directive
96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the                   In Case C-265/99: Commission of the European Communities
framework of the provision of services (OJ 1997 L 18, p. 1)                 (Agents: E. Traversa and H. Michard) v French Republic


title: Case T-420/11: Action brought on 31 July 2011 — Ocean Capital Administration and Others v Council

text:
               1.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 290/12

         Action brought on 31 July 2011 — Ocean Capital Administration and Others v Council
   (Case T-420/11)
   2011/C 290/16
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Ocean Capital Administration GmbH (Hamburg, Germany), First Ocean Administration GmbH (Hamburg, Germany), First Ocean GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg, Germany), Second Ocean Administration GmbH (Hamburg, Germany), Second Ocean GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg, Germany), Third Ocean Administration GmbH (Hamburg, Germany), Third Ocean GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg, Germany), Fourth Ocean Administration GmbH (Hamburg, Germany), Fourth Ocean GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg, Germany), Fifth Ocean Administration GmbH (Hamburg, Germany), Fifth Ocean GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg, Germany), Sixth Ocean Administration GmbH (Hamburg, Germany), Sixth Ocean GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg, Germany), Seventh Ocean Administration GmbH (Hamburg, Germany), Seventh Ocean GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg, Germany), Eighth Ocean Administration GmbH (Hamburg, Germany), Eighth Ocean GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg, Germany), Ninth Ocean Administration GmbH (Hamburg, Germany), Ninth Ocean GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg, Germany), Tenth Ocean Administration GmbH (Hamburg, Germany), Tenth Ocean GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg, Germany), Eleventh Ocean Administration GmbH (Hamburg, Germany), Eleventh Ocean GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg, Germany), Twelfth Ocean Administration GmbH (Hamburg, Germany), Twelfth Ocean GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg, Germany), Thirteenth Ocean Administration GmbH (Hamburg, Germany), Fourteenth Ocean Administration GmbH (Hamburg, Germany), Fifteenth Ocean Administration GmbH (Hamburg, Germany), Sixteenth Ocean Administration GmbH (Hamburg, Germany), Kerman Shipping Co. Ltd (Valletta, Republic of Malta), Woking Shipping Investments Ltd (Valletta, Republic of Malta), Shere Shipping Co. Ltd (Valletta, Republic of Malta), Tongham Shipping Co. Ltd (Valletta, Republic of Malta), Uppercourt Shipping Co. Ltd (Valletta, Republic of Malta), Vobster Shipping Co. Ltd (Valletta, Republic of Malta), Lancelin Shipping Co. Ltd (Limassol, Republic of Cyprus) (represented by: F. Randolph, Barrister, M. Lester, Barrister, and M. Taher, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 503/2011 of 23 May 2011 (1) and Council Decision 2011/299/CFSP of 23 May 2011 (2), in so far as the measures contained therein relate to the applicants;

               —

               Order the Council to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the defendant has manifestly erred in deciding that the applicants meet the criteria for listing, as:

                           —

                           The only basis on which the defendant has decided to include the applicants are allegations that they are ‘owned’ or ‘controlled’ by the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (‘IRISL’) or that they are a ‘subsidiary’ or ‘holding company’ of IRISL; and

                           —

                           The defendant has failed to carry out (or has erred if it did so) a case by case evaluation of the facts concerning each applicant, to determine whether it is likely that each one of them may be prompted to circumvent the restrictive measures against IRISL by reason of influence IRISL is said to wield over each applicant.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the contested measures violate the applicants’ right to a fair hearing and to effective judicial protection, as:

                           —

                           Such measures provide no procedure for communicating to the applicants the evidence on which the decision to freeze their assets was based, or for enabling them to comment meaningfully on that evidence;

                           —

                           The reasons given in the contested measures are only general and unsupported; and

                           —

                           The defendant has not given sufficient information to enable the applicants effectively to make known their views in response.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging the defendant failed to provide sufficient reasons for their inclusion in the contested measures, in violation of its obligation to give a clear statement of the actual and specific reasons justifying its decision.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested measures constitute an unjustified and disproportionate restriction on the applicants’ right to property and freedom to conduct their business, as:

                           —

                           The asset freezing measures have a marked and long-lasting impact on their fundamental rights;

                           —

                           The applicants’ inclusion is not rationally connected with the objective of the contested measures, namely to prevent circumvention of the restrictive measures; and

                           —

                           The defendant has not demonstrated that a total asset freeze is the least onerous means of ensuring such an objective, nor that the very significant harm to the applicants is justified and proportionate.

      (1)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 503/2011 of 23 May 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 136, p. 26)

      (2)  Council Decision 2011/299/CFSP of 23 May 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 136, p. 65)


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 15 September 1998 in Case T-94/96: Martin Hagleitner v Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Open competition - Selection board - Examiners - Correction of tests)

text:
C 327/22             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                24.10.98
2. Orders the Commission to pay the costs;                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 15 September 1998
3. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and                   in Case T-94/96: Martin Hagleitner v Commission of the
     Northern Ireland to bear its own costs.                                          European Communities (1)
                                                                    (Officials Ð Open competition Ð Selection board Ð
(1) OJ C 180, 22.6.1996.                                                          Examiners Ð Correction of tests)
                                                                                (98/C 327/39)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                                                                    In Case T-94/96: Martin Hagleitner, residing in Vienna,
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                    represented by Harald Svoboda, of the Vienna Bar, with
                    of 15 September 1998                            an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                    Maître Alex Schmitt, 62 Avenue Guillaume, against
in Case T-54/96: Oleifici Italiani SpA and Fratelli Rubino          Commission of the European Communities (Agents: Julian
Industrie Olearie SpA v Commission of the European                  Currall and Bertrand Wägenbaur) Ð application for
                       Communities (1)                              annulment of the measures adopted by the Commission in
(Agriculture Ð Financing of intervention measures Ð                 the context of Competition COM/A/904 or, at the very
Suspension of all payment due for storage of a                      least, the decision of the Selection Board in that
consignment of olive oil pending verification of its                competition not to admit the applicant to the oral tests Ð
 characteristics Ð Action for annulment and for damages)            the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed
                                                                    of A. Kalogeropoulos, President, and C. W. Bellamy and J.
                        (98/C 327/38)                               Pirrung, Judges; J. Palacio GonzaÂlez, Administrator, for
                                                                    the Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 September 1998
                                                                    in which it:
                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                    1. Annuls the decision of the Commission contained in
In Case T-54/96: Oleifici Italiani SpA, established at                  Mr Liikanen's letter of 18 September 1995 rejecting
Ostuni, Italy, Fratelli Rubino Industrie Olearie SpA,                   the applicant's request of 7 August 1995 for
established at Bari, Italy, represented by Antonio Tizzano,             verification and an enquiry as regards the proper
Gian Michele Roberti and Francesco Sciaudone, of the                    conduct of the assessment procedure and the results of
Naples Bar, 36 Place du Grand Sablon, Brussels, against                 Competition COM/A/904;
Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
Eugenio de March and Alberto Dal Ferro) Ð application,              2. Dismisses the remainder of the application;
first, for annulment of the letter of 7 February 1996 from
the Commission to inter alia the Italian authorities and
the Azienda di Stato per gli Interventi nel Mercato                 3. Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
Agricolo, the Italian intervention agency, allegedly
ordering the blocking of any payment due for the storage            (1) OJ C 247, 24.8.1996.
of olive oil for the 1991/1992 and 1992/1993 marketing
years, pending verification of its wax content, and,
second, for compensation for the damage allegedly
suffered by the applicants as a result of the Commission's
conduct Ð the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber),
composed of: A. Kalogeropoulos, President, C. W. Bellamy
and J. Pirrung, Judges; J. Palacio GonzaÂlez, Administrator,          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 September
                                                                                of 17 July 1998
1998, in which it:
                                                                    in Case T-118/96: Thai Bicycle Industry Co. Ltd v
                                                                                Council of the European Union (1)
1. Dismisses the application;
                                                                    (Dumping Ð Normal value Ð Constructed value Ð
                                                                    Production costs Ð Selling, general and administrative
                                                                          expenses Ð Profit margin Ð OEM adjustment)
2. Orders the applicants to pay their own costs and to
     bear those incurred by the Commission jointly and                                       (98/C 327/40)
     severally.
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
(1) OJ C 180, 22.6.1996.
                                                                    In Case T-118/96: Thai Bicycle Industry Co. Ltd,
                                                                    established in Samutprakarn (Thailand), represented by


title: Case C-279/08 P: Appeal brought on 25 June 2008 by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition) on 10 April 2008 in Case T-233/04 Kingdom of the Netherlands , supported by Federal Republic of Germany v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/30

         Appeal brought on 25 June 2008 by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition) on 10 April 2008 in Case T-233/04 Kingdom of the Netherlands, supported by Federal Republic of Germany v Commission of the European Communities

   (Case C-279/08 P)
   (2008/C 223/47)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. van Vliet, K. Gross and C. Urraca Gaviedes, Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Kingdom of the Netherlands, Federal Republic of Germany
   Form of order sought

               —

               Primarily:

                           (a)

                           set aside the judgment under appeal;

                           (b)

                              declare inadmissible the action seeking annulment of the Decision;

                           (c)

                           order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance and those of the present appeal;

               —

               In the alternative:

                           (a)

                           set aside the judgment under appeal;

                           (b)

                              dismiss the action seeking annulment of the Decision;

                           (c)

                           order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance and those of the present appeal.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

               —

               In its first plea, the Commission submits that the Court of First Instance erred in declaring the action brought by the Kingdom of the Netherlands to be admissible.
               In the view of the Commission, it is clear from the Court's case-law, and in particular from its order in Case C-164/02, that a Member State cannot seek the annulment of a Commission decision by which the Commission declares an aid measure notified by that Member State to be compatible with the common market.

               —

               By its second (alternative) plea in law, the Commission submits that the Court of First Instance was wrong to conclude that the disputed measure is not selective, that is to say, that it does not favour certain undertakings within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC. The Commission goes on to submit that the Court of First Instance erred in concluding that, even if the measure were selective, it would still not constitute State aid in view of its purpose and on the ground that that measure would be justified by the nature and general scheme of the system.


title: Case C-442/07: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 9 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Patent- und Markensenat — Austria) — Verein Radetzky-Orden v Bundesvereinigung Kameradschaft Feldmarschall Radetzky (Trade marks — Directive 89/104/EEC — Article 12 — Revocation — Marks registered by a non-profit-making association — Concept of genuine use of a trade mark — Charitable activities)

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/17

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 9 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Patent- und Markensenat — Austria) — Verein Radetzky-Orden v Bundesvereinigung Kameradschaft ‘Feldmarschall Radetzky’
   (Case C-442/07) (1)

   (Trade marks - Directive 89/104/EEC - Article 12 - Revocation - Marks registered by a non-profit-making association - Concept of ‘genuine use’ of a trade mark - Charitable activities)
   (2009/C 44/28)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Oberster Patent- und Markensenat
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Verein Radetzky-Orden

      Defendant: Bundesvereinigung Kameradschaft ‘Feldmarschall Radetzky’
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberster Patent- und Markensenat — Interpretation of Article 12(1) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1) — Trade marks used on business papers, writing paper, on advertising material and in the form of badges by a non-profit-making association in the context of its activity of seeking to preserve military traditions and collecting and distributing donations — Classification of that use as ‘genuine use’ capable of preserving the rights attached to the mark?
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 12(1) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks is to be construed as meaning that a trade mark is put to genuine use where a non-profit-making association uses the trade mark, in its relations with the public, in announcements of forthcoming events, on business papers and on advertising material and where the association's members wear badges featuring that trade mark when collecting and distributing donations.

      (1)  OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.


title: Judgment of the Court of 26 October 1999 in Case C-294/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Münster): Eurowings Luftverkehrs AG v Finanzamt Dortmund-Unna (Freedom to provide services — Trade tax — Add-back to the taxable amount — Exemption inapplicable to the lessee where the proprietor of the goods leased is established in another Member State and is therefore not liable to the tax)

text:
C 20/6                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          22.1.2000
2. Article 119 of the Treaty precludes an employer from excluding         ruling in the proceedings pending before that tribunal between
    female workers on parenting leave entirely from the benefit of a      Angela Maria Sirdar and The Army Board, Secretary of State
    bonus paid voluntarily as an exceptional allowance at Christmas       for Defence — on the interpretation of the EC Treaty, in
    without taking account of the work done in the year in which the      particular Article 224 thereof (now Article 297 EC), and of
    bonus is paid or of the periods for the protection of mothers (in     Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the
    which they were prohibited from working) where that bonus is          implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men
    awarded retroactively as pay for work performed in the course of      and women as regards access to employment, vocational
    that year.                                                            training and promotion, and working conditions (OJ 1976 L
                                                                          39, p. 40), in particular Article 2 thereof — the Court,
    However, neither Article 119 of the Treaty nor Article 11(2) of       composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, J.C. Moitinho
    Directive 92/85 nor Clause 2(6) of the Annex to Council               de Almeida, D.A.O. Edward and R. Schintgen (Presidents of
    Directive 96/34/EC of 3 June 1996 on the framework agree-             Chambers), P.J.G. Kapteyn, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur),
    ment on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the               G. Hirsch, P. Jann and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; A. La Pergola,
    ETUC precludes a refusal to pay such a bonus to a woman on            Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar,
    parenting leave where the award of that allowance is subject to       has given a judgment on 26 October 1999, in which it has
    the sole condition that the worker must be in active employment       ruled:
    when it is awarded.
                                                                          1. Decisions taken by Member States in regard to access to
                                                                              employment, vocational training and working conditions in the
3. Article 119 of the Treaty, Article 11(2)(b) of Directive 92/85             armed forces for the purpose of ensuring combat effectiveness do
    and Clause 2(6) of the Annex to Directive 96/34 do not preclude           not fall altogether outside the scope of Community law.
    an employer, when granting a Christmas bonus to a female
    worker who is on parenting leave, from taking periods of
    parenting leave into account, so as to reduce the benefit pro rata.   2. The exclusion of women from service in special combat units such
                                                                              as the Royal Marines may be justified under Article 2(2) of
                                                                              Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the
    However, Article 119 of the Treaty precludes an employer, when            implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and
    granting a Christmas bonus, from taking periods for the                   women as regards access to employment, vocational training and
    protection of mothers (in which they were prohibited from                 promotion, and working conditions, by reason of the nature of
    working) into account, so as to reduce the benefit pro rata.              the activities in question and the context in which they are carried
                                                                              out.
(1) OJ C 357 of 22.11.1997.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 295 of 27.9.1997.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 26 October 1999
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                          in Case C-294/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                       of 26 October 1999                                 the Finanzgericht Münster): Eurowings Luftverkehrs AG
                                                                                v Finanzamt Dortmund-Unna(1)
in Case C-273/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Industrial Tribunal, Bury St Edmunds): Angela Maria                   (Freedom to provide services — Trade tax — Add-back to
Sirdar v The Army Board, Secretary of State for                           the taxable amount — Exemption inapplicable to the lessee
                             Defence (1)                                  where the proprietor of the goods leased is established in
                                                                           another Member State and is therefore not liable to the tax)
(Equal treatment for men and women — Refusal to employ
           a woman as a chef in the Royal Marines)                                                    (2000/C 20/11)
                          (2000/C 20/10)                                                       (Language of the case: German)
                   (Language of the case: English)                        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-273/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Industrial                    In Case C-294/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
Tribunal, Bury St Edmunds, United Kingdom, for a preliminary              the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Finanzgericht
 ---pagebreak--- 22.1.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 20/7
(Finance Court) Münster, Germany, for a preliminary ruling in              1. The appeal is dismissed.
the proceedings pending before that court between Eurowings
Luftverkehrs AG and Finanzamt Dortmund-Unna — on the
interpretation of Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after                  2. Ms Gluiber is to bear her own costs.
amendment, Article 49 EC) — the Court, composed of:
G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida
(Rapporteur), D.A.O. Edward, L. Sevón (Presidents of Cham-
bers), P.J.G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch,            (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm and M. Wathelet, Judges; J. Mischo,
Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 26 October 1999, in which
it has ruled:
Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC)          Appeal brought on 6 January 1999 by Anthony Goldstein
precludes national legislation on trade tax such as that at issue in the   against the order made on 28 October 1998 by the Court
main action.                                                               of First Instance of the European Communities (Fourth
                                                                           Chamber) in Case T-100/98 between the present appellant
                                                                               and the Commission of the European Communities
(1) OJ C 295 of 27.9.1997.
                                                                                (Case C-4/99 P)
                                                                                (2000/C 20/13)
                    ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                           An appeal was brought before the Court of Justice of the
                                                                           European Communities on 6 January 1999 by Anthony
                          (First Chamber)                                  Goldstein against the order made on 28 October 1998 by the
                                                                           Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Fourth
                                                                           Chamber) in Case T-100/98 between the present appellant and
                       of 14 October 1999                                  the Commission of the European Communities.
in Case C-188/99 P: Karola Gluiber v Council of the                        By order of 8 July 1999, the Court of Justice (Fourth Chamber)
European Union and Commission of the European Com-                         dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to pay the
                             munities (1)                                  costs.
       (Manifestly inadmissible and unfounded appeal)
                           (2000/C 20/12)
                                                                           Appeal brought on 22 September 1999 by the Com-
                                                                           mission against the order made on 14 September 1999 by
                   (Language of the case: German)                          the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                           (Third Chamber) in Case T-145/98 ADT Projekt Gesell-
                                                                           schaft der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Deutscher Tierzüchter
In Case C-188/99 P: Karola Gluiber, residing at Staudernheim                   mbH v Commission of the European Communities
(Germany), represented by Dieter Rogalla, Rechtsanwalt,
Hamm, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Marguit Capus-Leelare, 117 Avenue Gaston                                              (Case C-349/99 P)
Diderich — appeal against the order of the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber) of
16 March 1999 in Case T-147/98 Gluiber v Council and                                                (2000/C 20/14)
Commission (not published in the European Court Reports),
seeking to have that order set aside, the other parties to the
proceedings being the Council of the European Union and the                An appeal was brought before the Court of Justice of
Commission of the European Communities — the Court (First                  the European Communities on 22 September 1999 by the
Chamber), composed of: L. Sevón, President of the Chamber,                Commission of the European Communities against the order
D.A.O. Edward and P. Jann (Rapporteur), Judges; A. La Pergola,             made on 14 September 1999 by the Court of First Instance of
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on                the European Communities (Third Chamber) in Case T-145/98
14 October 1999, the operative part of which is as follows:                ADT Projekt Gesellschaft der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Deutscher


No C 159/20           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   24 . 6 . 95
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura                        Removal from the register of Case C-328/93 ( )
Circondariale di Biella by order of that court of 30 March                                      ( 95/C 159/41 )
1995 in the case of USSL 47 di Biella v. Istituto Nazionale
per l'Assicurazione contro gli Infortuni sul Lavoro ( Inail )
                                                                     By order of 7 April 1995 the President of the Court of Justice
                       ( Case C-134/95 )                             of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
                         ( 95/C 159/39 )                             register of Case C-328/93 ( reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                     from the Arbeitsgericht Munchen ): Carla Baeskow v.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the               Lebenshilfe für geistig Behinderte eV, Stadt- und Landkreis
European Communities by order of the Pretura                         Munchen .
Circondariale ( District Magistrate's Court), Biella, of
30 March 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry
on 24 April 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of           (M OJ No C 205 , 29 . 7. 1993 .
USSL 47 di Biella v. Istituto Nazionale per l'Assicurazione
contro gli Infortuni sul Lavoro (Inail ) on the following
questions :
Is Article 1(1 ) of Law No 1369 of 23 October 1960, read in
conjunction with Article 11 ( 1 ) of Law No 264 of
29 October 1949 , compatible with the Community
principles laid down in Articles 48 , 49 , 54 and 90 of the EC              Removal from the register of Case C-402/93 ( )
Treaty and do those principles have direct effect, with the                                        95/C 159/42 )
result that the Italian legislation has to be set aside ?
                                                                     By order of 3 April 1995 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                     of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
                                                                     register of Case C-402/93 ( reference for a preliminary ruling
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura                  from the Arbeitsgericht Hamburg): Jutta Neumann v. Freie
Circondariale di Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli, by              und Hansestadt Hamburg.
orders of that court of 26 October 1994 (C-135/95 ) and
27 February 1995 ( C-140/95 and C-141/95 ) in criminal               (^ OJ No C 286 , 22 . 10 . 1993 .
proceedings pending before it against Francesco Segna and
        Others, Cesare Cervetti and Mario Gasbarri
         (Cases C-135/95 , C-140/95 and C-141 /95 )
                          ( 95/C 159/40 )
References have been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by orders of the Pretura
Circondariale di Roma , Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome                 Removal from the register of Case C-229/94 H
District Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division ) of 26 October
                                                                                ( 95/C 159/43 )
1994 ( C-135/95 ) and 27 February 1995 ( C-140/95 and
C-141 /95 ), which were received at the Court Registry on
24 April 1995 and 4 May 1995 respectively, for a                      By order of 5 May 1995 the President of the Court of Justice
preliminary ruling in criminal proceedings pending before it         of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
against Francesco Segna and Others, Cesare Cervetti and              register of Case C-229/34 ( reference for a preliminary ruling
Mario Gasbarri on questions identical with those referred in          from the High Court ( Queen's Bench Division)): The Queen
Cases C-112/95 , C-119/95 and C-123/95 ( M.                           v . Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte:
                                                                      Gerard Adams ).
(M OJ No C 137, 3 . 6 . 1995 .
                                                                      (') OJ No C 275 , 1 . 10 . 1994 .


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 June 2002 in Case C-474/99: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 85/337/EEC — Assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment — Incomplete transposition)

text:
C 180/2                    EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                             27.7.2002
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                 Abad): Application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt
court between Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Douane,                         the measures necessary to transpose correctly the obligation
Rotterdam district and Sea-Land Service Inc. (C-430/99),                        arising from Articles 2(1) and 4(2) of Council Directive 85/
Nedlloyd Lijnen BV (C-431/99), on the interpretation of                         337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of
Articles 92, 59 and 56 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,                  certain public and private projects on the environment
Articles 87 EC, 49 EC and 46 EC) and Council Regulation                         (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40), in conjunction with Annex II thereto,
(EEC) No 4055/86 of 22 December 1986 applying the                               and by maintaining in force legislation which, in breach of
principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport                  those provisions, does not enable an assessment of the
between Member States and between Member States and third                       environmental effects to be carried out in the whole of the
countries (OJ 1986 L 378, p. 1), the Court (Sixth Chamber),                     national territory in respect of certain classes of project listed
composed of: F. Macken, President of the Chamber, C. Gul-                       in Annex II to that directive and, in a considerable part of that
mann (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen and                           territory, in respect of many other classes of project listed in
J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General;                       the same annex, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its
L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a                       obligations under that directive, the Court (Sixth Chamber),
judgment on 13 June 2002, in which it has ruled:                                composed of: F. Macken, President of the Chamber,
                                                                                J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur) and V. Skouris, Judges; L.A. Geel-
As regards situations falling within the scope of Council Regulation            hoed, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the
(EEC) No 4055/86 of 22 December 1986 applying the principle of                  Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 June 2002, in which it:
freedom to provide services to maritime transport between Member
States and between Member States and third countries, that                      1.     Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period
regulation, in conjunction with Articles 56 and 59 of the EC Treaty                    all the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary
(now, after amendment, Articles 46 EC and 49 EC), does not preclude                    to comply with Articles 2(1) and 4(2) of Council Directive 85/
a vessel traffic services system, such as the ‘verkeersbegeleidingssysteem’            337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of
system at issue in the main proceedings, which requires the payment                    certain public and private projects on the environment, in
of a tariff by sea-going vessels longer than 41 metres which                           conjunction with Annex II thereto, the Kingdom of Spain has
participate in that system on a mandatory basis, while other vessels,                  failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
such as inland waterway vessels, are exempt from that tariff, in so far
as there is in fact a correlation between the amount of that tariff and         2.     Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
the cost of the service from which those sea-going vessels benefit.
                                                                                (1) OJ C 47 of 19.2.2000.
(1) OJ C 20 of 22.1.2000.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                             (Sixth Chamber)
                             of 13 June 2002                                                                   of 6 June 2002
in Case C-474/99: Commission of the European Communi-                           in Case C-80/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                      ties v Kingdom of Spain (1)                               the Bundesgerichtshof): Italian Leather SpA v WECO
                                                                                Polstermöbel GmbH & Co. (1)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Directive 85/337/EEC — Assessment of the effects of certain                     (Brussels Convention — Article 27(3) — Irreconcilability —
public and private projects on the environment — Incomplete                     Enforcement procedures in the State where enforcement is
                               transposition)                                                                      sought)
                             (2002/C 180/03)                                                                  (2002/C 180/04)
                      (Language of the case: Spanish)                                                 (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                      in the European Court Reports)                                                  in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-474/99, Commission of the European Communities                        In Case C-80/00: Reference to the Court, under the Protocol
(Agent: G. Valero Jordana) v Kingdom of Spain (Agent: N. Dı́az                  of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice of


title: Case T-591/11: Action brought on 15 November 2011 — Przedsiębiorstwo Handlowe Medox Lepiarz Lepiarz v OHIM — Henkel (SUPER GLUE)

text:
               4.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/29

         Action brought on 15 November 2011 — Przedsiębiorstwo Handlowe Medox Lepiarz Lepiarz v OHIM — Henkel (SUPER GLUE)
   (Case T-591/11)
   2012/C 32/59
   Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Przedsiębiorstwo Handlowe Medox Lepiarz Jarosław Lepiarz Alicja sp. j. (Jaworzno, Republic of Poland) (represented by: M. Konieczyński, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Henkel Corp. (Gulph Mills, United States)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 September 2011 in Case R 1147/2010-4;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs, including the costs of representation in the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Przedsiębiorstwo Handlowe Medox Lepiarz Lepiarz

      Community trade mark concerned: figurative trade mark depicting a tube in the colours white, black, grey and yellow and containing the word element ‘SUPER GLUE’, for goods in Classes 1 and 16 — Community trade mark application No 7 262 405

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Henkel Corp.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark No 377 517‘SUPERGLUE’ registered in Benelux, for goods in Classes 1 and 16

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition partially upheld

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (1) as regards establishment of the similarity of the trade marks and of the likelihood of confusion on the part of consumers

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


title: Case T-44/16: Action brought on 26 January 2016 — Novartis v EUIPO — SK Chemicals (Representation of a patch)

text:
               29.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 111/32

         Action brought on 26 January 2016 — Novartis v EUIPO — SK Chemicals (Representation of a patch)
   (Case T-44/16)
   (2016/C 111/38)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Novartis AG (Basel, Suisse) (represented by: M. Douglas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: SK Chemicals GmbH (Eschborn, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark (Representation of a patch) — EU trade mark registration No 11 293 362

      Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 November 2015 in Case R 2342/2014-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 80(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of the principle of fair trial by the Board of Appeal of EUIPO.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 March 2001 in Joined Cases C-397/98 and C-410/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Chancery Division): Metallgesellschaft Ltd and Others (C-397/98), Hoechst AG, Hoechst UK Ltd (C-410/98) v Commissioners of Inland Revenue, H.M. Attorney General (Freedom of establishment — Free movement of capital — Advance payment of corporation tax on profits distributed by a subsidiary to its parent company — Parent company having its seat in another Member State — Breach of Community law — Action for restitution or action for damages — Interest)

text:
16.6.2001                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 173/13
judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings being:              1.    Dismisses the appeal;
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Valses-
ia, and J. Currall, assisted by D. Waelbroeck) — the Court,
composed of G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann,               2.    Orders Mr Connolly to pay the costs.
A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur) and V. Skouris
(Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet,
P. Jann, L. Sevón, R. Schintgen and N. Colneric, Judges; D. Ruiz-         (1) OJ C 299 of 16.10.1999.
Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
given a judgment on 6 March 2001, in which it:
1.     Dismisses the appeal;
2.     Orders Mr Connolly to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 8 March 2001
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          of 6 March 2001                                  in Joined Cases C-397/98 and C-410/98 (reference for a
                                                                           preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of
                                                                           England and Wales, Chancery Division): Metallgesellschaft
in Case C-274/99 P: Bernard Connolly v Commission of                       Ltd and Others (C-397/98), Hoechst AG, Hoechst UK Ltd
                 the European Communities (1)                              (C-410/98) v Commissioners of Inland Revenue, H.M.
                                                                                Attorney General (1)
(Appeal — Officials — Disciplinary proceedings —
Articles 11, 12 and 17 of the Staff Regulations — Freedom
of expression — Duty of loyalty — Conduct reflecting on an                 (Freedom of establishment — Free movement of capital —
                          official’s position)                             Advance payment of corporation tax on profits distributed
                                                                           by a subsidiary to its parent company — Parent company
                                                                           having its seat in another Member State — Breach of
                           (2001/C 173/21)                                 Community law — Action for restitution or action for
                                                                                damages — Interest)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (2001/C 173/22)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
In Case C-274/99 P: Bernard Connolly, a former official of
the Commission of the European Communities, residing in                    In Joined Cases C-397/98 and C-410/98: reference to the
London, United Kingdom, represented by J. Sambon and                       Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now Article 234
P.-P. van Gehuchten, avocats, with an address for service in               EC) from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales,
Luxembourg, appeal against the judgment of the Court of First              Chancery Division, (United Kingdom) for a preliminary ruling
Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber) of                    in the proceedings pending before that court between Metallge-
19 May 1999 in Joined Cases T-34/96 and T-163/96 Connolly                  sellschaft Ltd and Others (C-397/98), Hoechst AG, Hoechst
v Commission [19991 ECR-SC I-A-87 and II-463, seeking to                   UK Ltd (C-410/98) and Commissioners of Inland Revenue,
have that judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings           H.M. Attorney General — on the interpretation of Articles 6
being: Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                     and 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 12
G. Valsesia and J. Currall, assisted by D. Waelbroeck) —                   EC and 43 EC), Article 58 of the EC Treaty (now Article 48
the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President,               EC) and/or Article 73b of the EC Treaty (now Article 56 EC)
C. Gulmann, A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur) and                    — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola,
V. Skouris (Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward,                        President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur),
J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann, L. Sevón, R. Schintgen and N. Colneric,        D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; N. Fennelly,
Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass,                Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 March 2001, in which it:              has given a judgment on 8 March 2001, in which it has ruled:
 ---pagebreak--- C 173/14                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          16.6.2001
1.   It is contrary to Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
     amendment, Article 43 EC) for the tax legislation of a Member
     State, such as that in issue in the main proceedings, to afford
     companies resident in that Member State the possibility of                                      (Sixth Chamber)
     benefiting from a taxation regime allowing them to pay
     dividends to their parent company without having to pay                                         of 8 March 2001
     advance corporation tax where their parent company is also
     resident in that Member State but to deny them that possibility
     where their parent company has its seat in another Member             in Case C-405/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
     State.                                                                the Stockholms Tingsrätt, Sweden): Konsumentom-
                                                                           budsmannen (KO) v Gourmet International Products AB
                                                                                (GIP) (1)
2.   Where a subsidiary resident in one Member State has been
     obliged to pay advance corporation tax in respect of dividends
                                                                           (Free movement of goods — Articles 30 and 36 of the EC
     paid to its parent company having its seat in another Member
                                                                           Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 28 EC and 30 EC)
     State even though, in similar circumstances, the subsidiaries of
                                                                           — Freedom to provide services — Articles 56 and 59 of the
     parent companies resident in the first Member State were
                                                                           EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 46 EC and 49
     entitled to opt for a taxation regime that allowed them to avoid
                                                                           EC) — Swedish legislation on the advertising of alcoholic
     that obligation, Article 52 of the Treaty requires that resident
                                                                           beverages — Selling arrangements — Measure having an
     subsidiaries and their non-resident parent companies should
                                                                           effect equivalent to a quantitative restriction — Justification
     have an effective legal remedy in order to obtain reimbursement
                                                                                in the interest of the protection of health)
     or reparation of the financial loss which they have sustained
     and from which the authorities of the Member State concerned
     have benefited as a result of the advance payment of tax by the                                  (2001/C 173/23)
     subsidiaries.
     The mere fact that the sole object of such an action is the                               (Language of the case: Swedish)
     payment of interest equivalent to the financial loss suffered as a
     result of the loss of use of the sums paid prematurely does not
     constitute a ground for dismissing such an action.                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
     While, in the absence of Community rules, it is for the domestic
     legal system of the Member State concerned to lay down the            In Case C-405/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
     detailed procedural rules governing such actions, including           the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Stockholms
     ancillary questions such as the payment of interest, those rules      Tingsrätt, Sweden for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
     must not render practically impossible or excessively difficult the   pending before that court between Konsumentombudsmannen
     exercise of rights conferred by Community law.                        (KO) and Gourmet International Products AB (GIP) — on the
                                                                           interpretation of Articles 30, 36, 56 and 59 of the EC Treaty
                                                                           (now, after amendment, Articles 28 EC, 30 EC, 46 EC and 49
3.   It is contrary to Community law for a national court to refuse        EC), — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann,
     or reduce a claim brought before it by a resident subsidiary          President of the Chamber, V. Skouris, J.-P. Puissochet (Rappor-
     and its non-resident parent company for reimbursement or              teur), R. Schintgen and F. Macken, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate
     reparation of the financial loss which they have suffered as a        General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar,
     consequence of the advance payment of corporation tax by the          has given a judgment on 8 March 2001, in which it has ruled:
     subsidiary, on the sole ground that they did not apply to the
     tax authorities in order to benefit from the taxation regime          Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
     which would have exempted the subsidiary from making                  Articles 28 EC and 30 EC) and Articles 56 and 59 of the EC Treaty
     payments in advance and that they therefore did not make use          (now, after amendment, Articles 46 EC and 49 EC) do not preclude
     of the legal remedies available to them to challenge the refusals     a prohibition on the advertising of alcoholic beverages such as that
     of the tax authorities, by invoking the primacy and direct effect     laid down in Article 2 of Lagen 1978:763 med vissa bestämmelser
     of the provisions of Community law, where upon any view               om marknadsföring av alkoholdrycker (Swedish Law laying down
     national law denied resident subsidiaries and their non-resident      provisions on the Marketing of Alcoholic Beverages), as amended,
     parent companies the benefit of that taxation regime.                 unless it is apparent that, in the circumstances of law and of fact
                                                                           which characterise the situation in the Member State concerned, the
                                                                           protection of public health against the harmful effects of alcohol can
                                                                           be ensured by measures having less effect on intra-Community trade.
(1) OJ C 1 of 4.1.1999.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 1 of 4.1.1999.