title: Action brought on 16 April 1998 by Transpo Maastricht B.V. and Marco Ooms, trading as M. Ooms, versus Commission of the European Communities (Case T-63/98)

text:
13.6.98               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 184/15
Instance of the European Communities on 8 April 1998               To the extent that Italian authorised dealers had their
by Volkswagen AG, Wolfsburg, Germany, represented by               dealerships terminated, or were threatened with
Rainer Bechtold, Rechtsanwalt, with an address for service         termination, in connection with re-exports, this took place
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch and Wolter, 11             exclusively on account of irregular supplies in breach of
Rue Goethe, Luxembourg.                                            the dealership contract to unauthorised resellers.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                        The applicant's conduct was maintained within the
                                                                   bounds of the block exemption Regulations (EEC) No
                                                                   123/85 and (EC) No 1475/95. The exemption in respect
Ð annul the Commission's decision (IV/35.733-VW) of                of the applicant's distribution system was still valid.
    28 January 1998, in accordance with the first
    paragraph of Article 174 of the EC Treaty;
                                                                   The applicant maintains it is wholly inaccurate to suggest
                                                                   that the alleged infringements began as early as 1987 and
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.                           continued after October 1995. The documents referred to
                                                                   by the Commission could relate only to the years 1993 to
                                                                   1995.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                   Finally, the applicant maintains that the conditions for a
In the contested decision, the Commission accused                  fine are not met. Even assuming the Commission's
Volkswagen, together with its subsidiaries Audi AG and             findings to be correct, the fine of ECU 102 000 000 would
Autogerma S.p.A., of infringements of Article 85(1) of the         be excessive.
EC Treaty, in that it concluded agreements with the Italian
dealers in the distribution network in order to prevent or
restrict sales to end users from other Member States acting
either in person or through an agent and to authorised
dealers in the distribution network established in other
Member States.
                                                                   Action brought on 16 April 1998 by Transpo Maastricht
Volkswagen was required, inter alia, to desist immediately         B.V. and Marco Ooms, trading as M. Ooms, versus
from the infringements of which it was accused and, on                      Commission of the European Communities
account of their seriousness, to pay a fine of ECU                                        (Case T-63/98)
102 000 000.
                                                                                (98/C 184/27)
In the applicant's view, the Commission breached its duty
to act fairly both in the proceeding and on the merits. The                       (Language of the case: Dutch)
proceeding was not carried out in an objective and
impartial manner. The applicant's exhaustive and
substantiated objections to the heads of complaint were to         An action against the Commission of the European
a large extent completely ignored, and the evidence was            Communities was brought before the Court of First
assessed in a one-sided and prejudiced manner.                     Instance of the European Communities on 16 April 1998
                                                                   by Transpo Maastricht B.V., Maastricht, and Marco
                                                                   Ooms, trading as M. Ooms, Terneuzen, represented by J.
The Commission infringed Article 190 of the EC Treaty              van Dam, of the Rotterdam Bar, with an address for
by failing to state reasons for the decision in the proper         service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of F. Entringer,
manner. The evidence did not even prove individual                 34a, Rue Philippe II.
measures by the applicant against legitimate re-exports
from Italy to Germany and Austria, let alone the alleged
overall strategy. The applicant had merely tried to prevent
                                                                   The applicants claim that the Court should:
irregular re-exports through sales to unauthorised
resellers. That was not only legally permissible, but
actually required.
                                                                   1. annul the decision, contained in the Commission's
                                                                       letter of 13 February 1998, to reject the applicants'
The Volkswagen subsidiary Autogerma had not agreed or                  request for an exemption under Article 8(3)(c) of
practised any splitting of profit margins, whereby sales by            Council Regulation (EEC) No 1101/89 (1), and grant
dealers outside its area were placed at a disadvantage. To             the exemption requested;
the extent that the differentiation in bonuses according to
the residence of the end purchaser, as alleged by the
Commission, was agreed and practised, it was permissible.          2. order the defendant to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- C 184/16           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   13.6.98
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:               to the aims of the Community structural improvement
                                                                  policy, that the Commission incorrectly assessed the
                                                                  technical features of the vessel and infringed the principle
The request made to the Commission concerns a vessel
                                                                  of equal treatment.
which was adapted in April 1996 for the transport of dry
fly ash.
                                                                  (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1101/89 of 27 April 1989 on
The applicants submit, inter alia, that the criteria applied          structual improvements in inland waterway transport (OJ
by the Commission were not published and are contrary                 L 116, 28.4.1989, p. 25).


10.2.2001             EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 45/17
       Removal from the register of Case C-440/99 (1)                     Removal from the register of Case C-332/99 (1)
                        (2001/C 45/34)                                                     (2001/C 45/37)
By order of 20 September 2000 the President of the Court of        By order of 4 October 2000 the President of the Fifth Chamber
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal        of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has
from the register of Case C-440/99: Commission of the              ordered the removal from the register of Case C-332/99:
European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.                  Commission of the European Communities v French Republic.
(1) OJ C 20 of 22.1.2000.                                          (1) OJ C 299 of 6.10.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-48/00 (1)
                                                                          Removal from the register of Case C-69/00 (1)
                        (2001/C 45/35)
                                                                                (2001/C 45/38)
By order of 25 September 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal        By order of 5 October 2000 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-48/00: Commission of the               Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
European Communities v Kingdom of Spain.                           from the register of Case C-69/00: Commission of the
                                                                   European Communities v Ireland.
(1) OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-290/98 (1)
                                                                          Removal from the register of Case C-197/98 (1)
                        (2001/C 45/36)
                                                                                (2001/C 45/39)
By order of 29 September 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal        By order of 6 October 2000 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-290/98: Commission of the              Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
European Communities v Republic of Austria.                        from the register of Case C-197/98: Commission of the
                                                                   European Communities, supported by United Kingdom of
(1) OJ C 299 of 26.9.1998.                                         Great Britain and Northern Ireland v Hellenic Republic.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 234 of 25.7.1998.


title: Case T-78/15: Action brought on 16 February 2015 — Mudhook Marketing v OHIM (IPVanish)

text:
               20.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 127/32

         Action brought on 16 February 2015 — Mudhook Marketing v OHIM (IPVanish)
   (Case T-78/15)
   (2015/C 127/44)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Mudhook Marketing, Inc. (Winter Park, United States) (represented by: A. Dellmeier and H. Eckermann, lawyers)

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

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘IPVanish’ — Application for registration No 2 330 271

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 December 2014 in Case R 1417/2014-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the contested decision;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case C-9/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein Hallinto-oikeus by order of that court of 31 December 1999 in the proceedings brought by Palin Granit Oy and Vehmassalon Kansanterveystyön Kuntayhtymän Hallitus

text:
C 102/10              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       8.4.2000
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein                          advantageous tender, take into account, in addition to the
Hallinto-oikeus by order of that court of 17 December                        tender price and the quality and environment programme
1999 in the case of Stagecoach Finland v Helsingin                           of the transport operator and various other characteristics
              Kaupunki and HKL-Bussiliikenne                                 of the bus fleet, the low nitric oxide emissions and
                                                                             low noise level of the bus fleet offered by a tendering
                                                                             undertaking, in a manner announced beforehand in the
                        (Case C-513/99)                                      tender notice, such that if the nitric oxide emissions or
                                                                             noise level of the individual buses are below a certain level,
                                                                             extra points for the fleet may be taken into account in the
                        (2000/C 102/15)                                      comparison?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  3. If the answer to the above question is affirmative, an
European Communities by an order of the Korkein Hallin-                      answer is requested to the following question also: Are the
to-oikeus (Supreme Administrative Court), Finland, of                        European Community provisions on public procurement
17 December 1999, which was received at the Court Registry                   to be interpreted as meaning that the awarding of extra
on 28 December 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of                 points for the above-mentioned characteristics relating to
Stagecoach Finland v Helsingin Kaupunki and HKL-Bussiliiken-                 nitric oxide emissions and noise level of the fleet is,
ne on the following questions:                                               however, not permitted if it is known beforehand that the
                                                                             department operating bus transport belonging to the city
                                                                             which is the contracting entity is able to offer a bus
1. Are the provisions on the scope of Council Directive                      fleet possessing the above characteristics, which in the
    93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating the procurement                   circumstances only a few undertakings in the sector are
    procedures of entities operating in the water, energy,                   otherwise able to offer?
    transport and telecommunications sectors (OJ 1993 L 199,
    p. 84), in particular Article 2(1)(a), (2)(c) and (4), to be
    interpreted as meaning that that directive applies to a
    procedure of a city which is a contracting entity for the
    award of a contract concerning the operation of bus
    transport within the city, if
    — the city is responsible for the planning, development,
        implementation and other arrangement and super-                 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein
        vision of public transport in its area,                         Hallinto-oikeus by order of that court of 31 December
                                                                        1999 in the proceedings brought by Palin Granit Oy and
    — for the above functions the city has a public transport           Vehmassalon Kansanterveystyön Kuntayhtymän Hallitus
        committee and a city transport department subordinate
        thereto,
                                                                                (Case C-9/00)
    — within the city transport department there is a planning
                                                                                (2000/C 102/16)
        unit which acts as an ordering unit which prepares
        proposals for the public transport committee on which
        routes should be put out to tender and what level of            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
        quality of services should be required, and                     European Communities by an order of the Korkein Hallin-
                                                                        to-oikeus (Supreme Administrative Court), Finland, of 31
    — within the city transport department there are pro-               December 1999, which was received at the Court Registry on
        duction units, economically distinct from the rest of           13 January 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
        the transport department, including a unit which                brought by Palin Granit Oy and Vehmassalon Kansanterveys-
        provides bus transport services and takes part in tender        työn Kuntayhtymän Hallitus on the following questions:
        procedures relating thereto?
                                                                        Is leftover stone resulting from stone quarrying to be regarded
2. Are the European Community provisions on public pro-                 as waste within the meaning of Article 1(a) of Council Directive
    curement, in particular Article 36(1) of Council Directive          75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (1), as amended by
    92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination              Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991(2), having
    of procedures for the award of public service contracts (OJ         regard to points (a) to (d) below?
    1992 L 209, p. 1) or the equivalent Article 34(1) of
    Directive 93/38/EEC, to be interpreted as meaning that,             (a) What relevance, in deciding the above question, does it
    when organising a tender procedure concerning the oper-                  have that the leftover stone is stored on a site adjoining
    ation of bus transport within the city, a city which is a                the place of quarrying to await subsequent use? Is it
    contracting entity may, among the criteria for awarding                  relevant generally whether it is stored on the quarrying
    the contract on the basis of the economically most                       site, a site next to it or further away?
 ---pagebreak--- 8.4.2000              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 102/11
(b) What relevance does it have that the leftover stone is the         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supreme Court,
    same as regards its composition as the basic rock from             Dublin, by order of that court of 30 July 1999, in the case
    which it has been quarried, and that it does not change its        of SIAC Construction Ltd against The County Council of
    composition regardless of how long it is kept or how it is                               the County of Mayo
    kept?
(c) What relevance does it have that the leftover stone is
    harmless to human health and the environment? To what
    extent generally is importance to be attached to its possible                               (Case C-19/00)
    effect on health and the environment in assessing whether
    it is waste?
(d) What relevance does it have that the intention is to transfer                              (2000/C 102/18)
    the leftover stone in whole or in part away from the
    storage site for recovery, for example for landfill or
    breakwaters, and that it could be used as such without
    processing or similar measures? To what extent in this
    connection should attention be paid to how definite plans          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    the holder of the leftover stone has for such recovery and         European Communities by an order of the Supreme Court,
    to how soon after the leftover stone has been deposited on         Dublin, of 30 July 1999, which was received at the Court
    the storage site the recovery takes place?                         Registry on 24 January 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                       case of SIAC Construction Ltd against The County Council of
                                                                       the County of Mayo, on the following question:
(1) OJ L 194 of 25.7.1975, p. 39.
(2) OJ L 78 of 26.3.1991, p. 32.
                                                                       In a situation where an authority is awarding a contract
                                                                       pursuant to the provisions of the second indent of Article 29.1
                                                                       of Council Directive (71/305/EEC) (1), Chapter 2 of 26 July
                                                                       1971 as applied in the national law of a Member State, and
                                                                       where the authority shall have specified the ‘Award criteria
                                                                       (other than price)’ as being that the contract would be awarded
                                                                       to ‘the competent contractor submitting a tender which is
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Collège                    adjudged to be the most advantageous to the’ (awarding
juridictionnel de la région de Bruxelles-Capitale (judicial            authority) ‘in respect of cost and technical merit’ and where
board of the Brussels-Capital region) by order of that                 the three lowest tenders shall have been contractors of accepted
court of 9 December 1999 in the case of François                       competence and shall have submitted valid tenders of accepted
De Coster v Collège des Bourgmestre et Echevins de                     technical merit, and where the tender prices of the three lowest
                      Watermael-Boitsfort                              tenderers shall not have diverged greatly, is the awarding
                                                                       authority obliged to award the contract to the contractor who
                         (Case C-17/00)                                shall have tendered the lowest price or is the awarding
                                                                       authority entitled to award the contract to the contractor with
                                                                       the second lowest price on the basis of the professional report
                        (2000/C 102/17)                                of its consulting engineer that the ultimate cost of the contract
                                                                       to the awarding authority is likely to be less if the contract is
                                                                       awarded to the contractor who tendered the second lowest
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 price than it would be if the contract were awarded to the
European Communities by an order of the Collège juridiction-           contractor who tendered the lowest price?
nel de la région de Bruxelles-Capitale of 9 December 1999,
which was received at the Court Registry on 19 January 2000,
for a preliminary ruling in the case of François De Coster v
Collège des Bourgmestre et Echevins de Watermael-Boitsfort
on the following question:
                                                                       (1) Concerning the co-ordination of procedures for the award of
                                                                           public works contracts (OJ L 185 of 16.8.1971, p. 5) (SE SER1
‘Are Articles 1 to 3 of the tax regulation on satellite dishes             71(II) p. 682).
adopted in a vote by the municipal council of Watermael-Boits-
fort sitting in public on 24 June 1997 introducing a tax on
satellite dishes compatible with Articles 59 to 66 of the Treaty
establishing the European Community of 25 March 1957?’


title: Case C-296/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven kasatsionen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 22 May 2017 — Wiemer & Trachte GmbH (in insolvency) v Zhan Oved Tadzher

text:
               7.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/14

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven kasatsionen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 22 May 2017 — Wiemer & Trachte GmbH (in insolvency) v Zhan Oved Tadzher
   (Case C-296/17)
   (2017/C 256/11)
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Varhoven kasatsionen sad

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Wiemer & Trachte GmbH (in insolvency)

      Respondent: Zhan Oved Tadzher

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 (1) of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings to be interpreted as meaning that the jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State within the territory of which insolvency proceedings have been opened to hear and determine an action to set a transaction aside by virtue of the debtor’s insolvency which has been brought against a defendant whose registered office or habitual residence is in another Member State is exclusive, or, in the case of Article 18(2) of that regulation, is the liquidator empowered to bring an action to set aside before a court in the Member State within the territory of which the defendant has his registered office or habitual residence, where the action to set aside brought by the liquidator is based on a disposal of moveable assets carried out in the other Member State?

               2.

               Is an obligation which was honoured for the benefit of the debtor in one Member State, via the managing director of an establishment of the debtor company registered in that Member State, deemed to have been discharged, in accordance with Article 24(2) in conjunction with Article 24(1) of Regulation No 1346/2000, where, at the time when that obligation was honoured, a request for the opening of insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor’s assets had been made and a provisional liquidator had been appointed in another Member State, but no judgment opening insolvency proceedings had been delivered?

               3.

               Does Article 24(1) of Regulation No 1346/2000, on the honouring of an obligation, apply to the payment of a sum of money to the debtor, where the original transfer of that sum from the debtor to the person honouring the obligation is regarded as being invalid under the national law of the insolvency court and that invalidity follows from the opening of the insolvency proceedings?

               4.

               Does the presumption of a lack of awareness provided for in Article 24(2) of Regulation No 1346/2000 apply where the authorities referred to in the second sentence of Article 21(2) have not taken all necessary measures to ensure that the decisions by which the insolvency court appointed a provisional liquidator and ordered that disposals of assets effected by the company are to be valid only with the consent of the provisional liquidator are published in the register of the Member State within the territory of which the debtor has an establishment, where the Member State in which the establishment has its registered office provides for the mandatory publication of those decisions, even though it recognises them in accordance with Article 25 in conjunction with Article 16 of that regulation?

      (1)  OJ 2000 L 160, p. 1.


title: Case T-10/04: Action brought on5 January 2004 by Carlos Leite Mateus against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 59/36                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                           6.3.2004
Grounds of the appeal:          Wrong application of Article               Pleas in law and main arguments
                                8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/
                                94 (likelihood of confusion), fail-
                                ure to state reasons and misuse            Applicants for the Com-       Friedrich Grimm and Engelbert
                                of powers by manifest error of             munity trade mark:            Rolli
                                assessment and inconsistency
                                with the Examiner’s decision of            Community trade mark          Community trade mark appli-
                                23 November 1999 regarding                 sought:                       cation No 847640 for word mark
                                partial rejection of the registration                                    SNIKE in relation to certain goods
                                of the mark concerned.                                                   in classes 12, 25 and 41 (Vehicles,
                                                                                clothing, footwear, headgear, edu-
                                                                                cation, entertainment,...)
                                                                           Proprietor of mark or         The applicant, Muswellbrook Ltd.
                                                                           sign cited in the oppo-
                                                                           sition proceedings:
Action brought on 9 January 2004 by Muswellbrook                           Mark or sign cited in         The national figurative mark No
Limited against the Office for Harmonisation in the                        opposition:                   88222 for certain goods in
    Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)                                                     class 25 (Stockings, socks, shirts,
                                                                                gloves, coats, footwear, sporting
                           (Case T-8/04)                                                                 footwear, ...)
                          (2004/C 59/57)                                   Decision of the Oppo-         Rejection of the opposition
                                                                           sition Division:
(Language of the case to be determined pursuant to article 131(2) of       Decision of the Board of      Dismissal of the appeal
the Rules of Procedure — language in which the case was submitted:         Appeal:
                              English)
                                                                           Pleas in law:                 Violation of Article 8 (1) (b) of
                                                                                Council Regulation (EC) No 40/
                                                                                941 (1)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                           (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
9 January 2004 by Muswellbrook Limited, Dublin, Ireland,                       Community trade mark (OJ 11, p. 1).
represented by Ms P. Koch Moreno, lawyer. Friedrich Grimm
and Engelbert Rolli were also party to the proceedings before
the Board of Appeal.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     declare that the decision which was issued on 5 November
      2003 by the First Board of Appeal of OHIM, which                     Action brought on5 January 2004 by Carlos Leite Mateus
      dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal against the resolution of             against the Commission of the European Communities
      29 April 2002 in opposition procedure No B 1181/
      2002, which dismissed the opposition that was lodged
      against community trade mark application No 847640                                            (Case T-10/04)
      for the registration of the word SNIKE in relation to all
      the products of class 25 covered by the application, does
      not comply with the EC Regulations on Community                                               (2004/C 59/58)
      Trade Marks, No 40/94, and that the said decision be set
      aside;
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
—     declare that there is a risk of confusion between the
      community trade mark application with No 847640 for
      the word SNIKE in class 25 and Spanish trade mark
      No 88222, consisting of the word NIKE with device,                   An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      which protects identical products that also fall under               ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      class 25;                                                            European Communities on 5 January 2004 by Carlos Leite
                                                                           Mateus, residing in Zaventem (Belgium), represented by Sébas-
—     order the respondent and, if applicable, the intervening             tien Orlandi, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Étienne
      party to pay the costs of these proceedings.                         Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
 ---pagebreak--- 6.3.2004               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 59/37
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               European Communities on 14 January 2004 by Georges
                                                                          Martins, residing in Brussels, represented by Sébastien Orlandi,
—     Annul the final decision of 20 December 2002 fixing the             Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Étienne Marchal, lawyers,
      applicant’s classification on recruitment in Grade B 3              with an address for service in Luxembourg.
      with effect from 1 March 1988;
—     Order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           —     Annul the Commission’s decision of 14 April 2003 in so
                                                                                far as it:
The applicant was classified in Grade B, Step 3, upon entering
the service of the Commission in March 1988 and is contesting                   —     revises and fixes, with effect from 1 June 1991, the
the appointing authority’s decision not to reclassify him after                       applicant’s classification on recruitment in Gra-
reconsidering his situation following the judgment of the                             de A 6, Step 1;
Court of Justice in Case C-389/98 P Gevaert.
                                                                                —     revises and fixes, with effect from 1 April 2000, his
In support of his claims, the applicant submits that in                               classification in Grade A 5, Step 3;
reconsidering his file, the Commission took the view that his
professional experience could be taken into account only from                   —     limits the pecuniary effects to 5 October 1005;
May 1970, the date on which he obtained the diploma
rendering him eligible for a Category B post. The applicant               —     Order the Commission to pay the costs.
claims that he obtained his diploma of secondary education in
July 1964. He submits that the decision is vitiated by a
manifest error of assessment and is therefore unlawful.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant also claims that there has been a breach of
Article 5 of the Staff Regulations.
                                                                          The applicant was classified in Grade A 7, Step 3, upon
                                                                          entering the service in June 1991 with the Economic and
                                                                          Social Committee and was transferred to the Commission on
                                                                          1 November 1992. On 31 July 2002, the appointing authority
Action brought on 14 January 2004 by Georges Martins                      of the Economic and Social Committee revised and fixed his
  against the Commission of the European Communities                      recruitment on classification in Grade A 6, Step 1.
                          (Case T-11/04)
                                                                          In the applicant’s submission, the Commission was therefore
                         (2004/C 59/59)
                                                                          required to take the measures to implement that decision with
                   (Language of the case: French)                         effect from 1 November 1992, the date on which he was
                                                                          transferred to its services, and also to reconstruct his career; as
                                                                          it has failed to do so, it has infringed Articles 62 and 45 of the
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 Staff Regulations and also the principle that an official is
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                entitled to reasonable career prospects.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 11 September 1995 in Case T-286/94: Z v. Economic and Social Committee of the European Communities (Officials - Promotion - Retirement - Inadmissibility)

text:
No C 286/ 14          EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 28 . 10 . 95
    ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              H. Jung, Registrar, made the following order on 11 July
                       of 11 July 1995                                1995 , the operative part of which is as follows :
in Case T-23/90 — Article 92 and T-9/92 — Article 92 ,
Automobiles Peugeot SA and Peugeot SA v. Commission of                the total amount of the costs to be reimbursed by Peugeot to
                                                                      Eco System is fixed at FF 320 000.
               the European Communities ( J )
                      (Taxation of costs)                             (') OJ No C 129 , 24 . 5 . 1990 .
                         95/C 286/33 )
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
In Case T-23/90 — Article 92, Automobiles Peugeot SA and                                  of 11 September 1995
Peugeot SA, companies governed by French law and having               in Case T-286/94 : Z v. Economic and Social Committee of
their registered offices in Paris, represented by Xavier de                          the European Communities ( 1 )
Roux, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Guy Loesch, 8 Rue Zithe,                 (Officials — Promotion — Retirement — Inadmissibility)
v. Commission of the European Communities ( Agents:                                             ( 95/C 286/34 )
initially Jacques Bourgeois, then Giuliano Marenco and
Francis Herbert ), supported by Eco System SA, a company                            (Language of the case: German)
governed by French law, having its registered office in
Rouen, France, represented by Robert Collin, of the Paris             In Case T-286/94 : Z, a former official of the Economic and
Bar, and Nicolas Decker, of the Luxembourg Bar, with an               Social Committee of the European Communities, residing in
address for service in Luxembourg at the latter's Chambers,           Brussels, represented by W. G. Grupp, of the Brussels Bar,
16 Avenue Marie Therese, and Bureau Européen des Unions               with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
de Consommateurs ( BEUC ), an association governed by                 Intergest, 3 Rue des Foyers, v. Economic and Social
Belgian law, having its office in Brussels, represented by            Committee of the European Communities ( Agents : Bermejo
Philip Bentley, Barrister, of Lincoln 's Inn, and Konstantinos        Garde and Denis Waelbroeck ) — application, first, for the
Adamantopolous, of the Athens Bar, with an address for                annulment of the decision of 6 October 1993 rejecting the
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arsène                       applicant's application for vacancy No 61 /92 and the
Kronshagen , 12 Boulevard de la Foire, and by the United              implied rejection of his complaint and, second, for an order
Kingdom Government ( Agent: Hussein A. Kaya ),                        requiring the Economic and Social Committee to pay him
application for taxation of the costs to be reimbursed by the         compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by him —
applicants to the intervener Eco System SA following the              the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber ), composed of J.
order made on 2 1 May 1 990 by the President of the Court of          Biancarelli, President, and C. P. Briët and C. W. Bellamy,
First Instance on an application for interim measures in Case         Judges; made an order on 11 September 1995 , the operative
T-23/90 R [ 1991 ] ECR 11-195 and the judgment of the                 part of which is as follows:
Court of First Instance ( First Chamber ) of 12 July 1991 in
Case T-23/90 [ 1991 ] ECR 11-653 , and in Case T-9/92 —                1 . the    application       is    dismissed as   manifestly
Article 92 , Automobiles Peugeot SA and Peugeot SA,                        inadmissible;
companies governed by French law and having their
registered offices in Paris, represented by Xavier de Roux, of        2 . the parties are ordered to bear their own costs.
the Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the Chambers of Guy Loesch, 8 Rue Zithe, v. Commission                 (') OJ No C 316 , 12 . 11 . 1994 .
 of the European Communities ( Agents : Giuliano Marenco
 and Francis Herbert ), supported by Eco System SA, a
 company governed by French law, having its registered
 office in Rouen, France, represented by Robert Collin, of the
 Paris Bar, and Nicolas Decker, of the Luxembourg Bar, with                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 an address for service in Luxembourg at the latter's
 Chambers, 16 Avenue Marie Therese, and Bureau Européen                                      of 16 August 1995
 des Unions de Consommateurs ( BEUC ), an association                  in Case T-290/94 : Kaysersberg SA v. Commission of the
 governed by Belgian law, having its office in Brussels,                                 European Communities (')
 represented by Philip Bentley, Barrister, of Lincoln's Inn,                            (Rules governing languages)
 and Konstantinos Adamantopolous, of the Athens Bar, with
 an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                                         ( 95/C 286/35 )
 Arsène Kronshagen, 12 Boulevard de la Foire, application
 for taxation of the costs to be reimbursed by the applicants                         (Language of the case: French)
 to the intervener Eco System SA following the judgment of
 the Court of First Instance ( Second Chamber ) of 22 April            In Case T-290/94 : Kaysersberg SA, established in
 1993 in Case T-9/92 [ 1993 ] ECR 11-493 , the Court of                Kaysersberg ( France ), represented by Dominique Voillemot
 First Instance ( First Chamber, Extended Composition ),               and Jacques-Philippe Gunther, of the Paris Bar, with an
 composed of J. L. Cruz Vilaça , President, D. P. M.                   address for service in Luxembourg at the chambers of
 Barrington, A. Saggio, H. Kirschner and V. Tiili , Judges;            Jacques Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe, v. Commission of the


title: Case C-180/04: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 September 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova — Italy) — Andrea Vassallo v Azienda Ospedaliera Ospedale San Martino di Genova e Cliniche Universitarie Convenzionate (Directive 1999/70/EC — Clauses 1(b) and 5 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work — Establishment of employment relationships of indefinite duration resulting from infringement of the rules governing successive fixed-term contracts — Possible derogation in respect of employment contracts in the public sector)

text:
               28.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/1

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 September 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova — Italy) — Andrea Vassallo v Azienda Ospedaliera Ospedale San Martino di Genova e Cliniche Universitarie Convenzionate
   (Case C-180/04) (1)

   (Directive 1999/70/EC - Clauses 1(b) and 5 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work - Establishment of employment relationships of indefinite duration resulting from infringement of the rules governing successive fixed-term contracts - Possible derogation in respect of employment contracts in the public sector)
   (2006/C 261/02)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Tribunale di Genova
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Andrea Vassallo

      Defendant: Azienda Ospedaliera Ospedale San Martino di Genova e Cliniche Universitarie Convenzionate
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale di Genova — Interpretation of Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43) — Establishment of employment relationships of indefinite duration resulting from infringement of the rules governing successive fixed-term contracts — Possible derogation in respect of employment contracts in the public sector
   Operative part of the judgment
   The framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, which is annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as not in principle precluding national legislation which, where there is abuse arising from the use of successive fixed-term employment contracts or relationships by a public-sector employer, precludes their being converted into contracts of indeterminate duration, even though such conversion is provided for in respect of employment contracts and relationships with a private-sector employer, where that legislation includes another effective measure to prevent and, where relevant, punish the abuse of successive fixed-term contracts by a public-sector employer.

      (1)  OJ C 156, 12.6.2004.


               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/67

         Removal from the register of Case T-300/99 (1)

   (2004/C 94/168)

      (Language of the Case: Dutch)

   By order of 22 January 2004 the President of the Second Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case T-300/99: Firma Reuvekamp V.O.F. v Commission of the European Communities.

      (1)  OJ C 63 of 04.03.2000.


title: Case C-352/03 P: Appeal brought on 11 August by P. Del Vaglio against the judgment delivered on 4 June 2003 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Single Judge) in Joined Cases T-124/01 and T-320/01 between P. Del Vaglio and Commission of the European Communities

text:
18.10.2003               EN                              Official Journal of the European Union                                        C 251/5
     dually, depart from actual values to an extent not greater                and, consequently,
     than a certain threshold?
                                                                                1.   annul the decision taken by the Commission on
                                                                                5 April 2000 refusing to apply the weighting for
2.   With reference to the duty of each Member State to adopt                            the United Kingdom to the applicant's pension from
     ‘appropriate penalties’ for the infringements established                           8 May 1999 and, in so far as necessary, annul the
     by1 the first and fourth directives (Directive 68/151/EEC                           Commission's decision of 23 February 2001 rejecting
     and Directive 78/660/EEC), must the directives themselves                           the applicant's complaint of 18 July 2000,
     and in particular the combined provisions of Article 44(3)
     (g) of the Treaty, Articles 2(1)(f) and 6 of the first directive
     (Directive 68/151/EEC) and Article 2(2), (3) and (4) of
     the fourth directive (Directive 78/660/EEC, as amended by                      2.   order the Commission to apply the weighting for the
     Directive 83/349 and Directive 90/605), be interpreted as                           United Kingdom with retroactive effect to 8 May
     meaning that that legislation precludes a law of a Member                           1999,
     State which, in the case of infringement of the obligations
     imposed in order to safeguard the principle of public and
     accurate company information, lays down a sanctionative
     system which actually allows false accounting to the                           3.   order the Commission to pay damages provisionally
     extent of one fifth of the company's net assets?                                    assessed on an equitable basis at EUR 10 000 and to
                                                                                pay interest of 7 % on the balance of the pension
                                                                                payable from 8 May 1999,
(1) English special edition...: Series-I I Chapter 1968(I), p. 41.
(2) OJ L 222 of 14.8.1978, p. 11.
(3) OJ L 193 of 18.7.1983, p. 1.                                                    4.   order the Commission to pay all the costs.
(4) OJ L 317 of 16.11.1990, p. 60.
                                                                               B.   Set aside the decision of the Court of First Instance in so
                                                                                far as it dismissed the application in Case T-320/01 for
                                                                                the period prior to 1 January 2001
Appeal brought on 11 August by P. Del Vaglio against the
judgment delivered on 4 June 2003 by the Court of First                        and, consequently,
Instance of the European Communities (Single Judge) in
Joined Cases T-124/01 and T-320/01 between P. Del
  Vaglio and Commission of the European Communities                                 1.   annul the decision taken by the Commission on
                                                                                6 September 2001 rejecting the applicant's complaint
                          (Case C-352/03 P)                                              in respect of the application to his pension of a
                                                                                weighting for the United Kingdom with effect from
                                                                                24 September 2000,
                           (2003/C 251/10)
                                                                                2.   order the Commission to apply a weighting for the
                                                                                United Kingdom with retroactive effect to
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 4 June 2003 by                               24 September 2000,
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
(Single Judge) in Joined Cases T-124/01 and T-320/01 between
P. Del Vaglio and Commission of the European Communities                            3.   order the Commission to pay damages provisionally
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                                  assessed on an equitable bases at EUR 15 000 and to
Communities on 11 August 2003 by P. Del Vaglio, represented                              pay interest of 7 % on the balance of the pension
by M. Famchon and B. Desrez, lawyers, with an address for                                from 24 September 2000 until 1 April 2001.
service in Paris.
                                                                               Pleas and main arguments
The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                               The Court of First Instance erred in considering that the docu-
                                                                               ments produced provided sufficient evidence of the applicant's
A.    Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of                 intention to establish his residence in London only from
      4 June 2003 in so far as it dismisses the application in                 1 January 2001. The Court of First Instance also made an
      Case T-124/01                                                            error of law in considering that the fact that the applicant was
 ---pagebreak--- C 251/6                EN                     Official Journal of the European Union                                           18.10.2003
deprived of the benefit of the inter-service meeting provided          2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Optigen Ltd
for in the regulations had not adversely affected him. In the          against Commissioners of Customs and Excise on the
absence of that meeting, the applicant was unable either to            following questions:
present his case in an appropriate manner before a group of
representatives of the Commission or to know what probative
documents the Commission considered to be lacking.
                                                                       A.     Under the common system of VAT, and in the light of
                                                                              Council Directives 67/227/EEC (1) and 77/388/EEC (2), is
                                                                              the entitlement of a trader to credit for a payment in
                                                                              respect of VAT under a transaction to be judged by
                                                                              reference to:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal
(England & Wales) (Civil Division) by order of that court
dated 25 July 2003, in the case of Société de produits                       (1)    only the particular transaction to which the trader
                Nestlé SA against Mars UK Ltd                                       was a party including the trader's purposes in enter-
                                                                                ing into it, or
                          (Case C-353/03)
                          (2003/C 251/11)
                                                                             (2)    the totality of transactions, including subsequent
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                              transactions, making up a circular chain of supply
European Communities by an order of the Court of Appeal                             of which the particular transaction forms part
(England & Wales) (Civil Division) dated 25 July 2003, which                        including the purposes of other participants in the
was received at the Court Registry on 18 August 2003, for a                         chain of which the trader has no knowledge and/or
preliminary ruling in the case of Société de produits Nestlé SA                     means of knowledge, and/or
against Mars UK Ltd on the following question:
Whether the distinctive character of a mark referred to
in Article 3(3) of Council Directive 89/104/EEC (1) and                      (3)    the fraudulent acts and intention, whether arising
Article 7(3) of Council Regulation 40/94 (2) may be acquired                        prior or subsequent to the particular transaction, of
following or in consequence of the use of that mark as part of                      other participants in the circular chain of whose
or in conjunction with another mark?                                                involvement the trader is unaware and of whose
                                                                                acts and intentions the trader has no knowledge
                                                                                and/or means of knowledge, or
(1) First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to
    approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade
    marks OJ L 040, 11.02.1989, p. 1-7.
(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
                                                                             (4)    some other, and if so what, criteria?
    Community trade mark OJ L 011, 14.01.1994, p. 1-36.
                                                                       B.    Does the exclusion from the VAT regime of transactions
                                                                             entered into by an innocent party, but which form links in
                                                                             a carousel fraud by others, infringe the general principles
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
                                                                             of proportionality, equal treatment or legal certainty?
Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division, by order of
that court dated 28 July 2003, in the case of Optigen Ltd
        against Commissioners of Customs and Excise
                                                                       (1) First Council Directive 67/227/EEC of 11 April 1967 on the
                          (Case C-354/03)                                  harmonisation of legislation of Member States concerning turnover
                                                                           taxes OJ P 071, 14.04.1967, p. 1301-1303.
                          (2003/C 251/12)                              (2) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
                                                                           harmonization of laws of the Member States relating to turnover
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform bassis of
European Communities by an order of the High Court of                      assessment OJ L 145, 13.06.1977, p. 1-40.
Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division, dated 28 July
2003, which was received at the Court Registry on 18 August


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 12 February 1998 in Case C-144/97: Commission of the European Communities v. French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 92/74/EEC)

text:
28.3.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 94/3
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       (Fifth Chamber)                                                       (Sixth Chamber)
                     of 12 February 1998                                                   of 12 February 1998
in    Case   C-139/97: Commission of the             European        in    Case    C-144/97: Commission of the European
              Communities v. Italian Republic (1)                                   Communities v. French Republic (1)
(Failure to fulfil obligations Ð Failure to transpose                (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations Ð
                      Directive 94/2/EC)                                                  Directive 92/74/EEC)
                                                                                (98/C 94/06)
                         (98/C 94/05)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                     In Case C-144/97: Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities (Agents: Richard Wainwright and Jean-
In Case C-139/97: Commission of the European                         Francis Pasquier) v. French Republic (Agents: Kareen
Communities (Agent: Paolo Stancanelli, assisted by                   Rispal-Bellanger and FreÂdeÂric Pascal) Ð application for a
Massimo Merola) v. Italian Republic (Agent: Umberto                  declaration that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and
Leanza, assisted by Danilo Del Gaizo) Ð application for a            administrative provisions necessary in order to comply
declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations          with Council Directive 92/74/EEC of 22 September 1992
and administrative provisions necessary to comply with               widening the scope of Directive 81/851/EEC on the
Commission Directive 94/2/EC of 21 January 1994                      approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation
implementing Council Directive 92/75/EEC with regard to              or administrative action relating to veterinary medicinal
energy labelling of household electric refrigerators,                products and laying down additional provisions on
freezers and their combinations (OJ L 45, 17.2.1994, p. 1),          homeopathic veterinary medicinal products (OJ L 297,
or at least by failing to notify those provisions to the             13.10.1992, p. 12), the French Republic has failed to fulfil
Commission, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its            its obligations under that Directive Ð the Court (Sixth
obligations under that Directive Ð the Court (Fifth                  Chamber), composed of: H. Ragnemalm, President of the
Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the                  Chamber, G. F. Mancini, J. L. Murray (Rapporteur), G.
Chamber, D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann                  Hirsch and K. M. Ioannou, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate-
(Rapporteur) and L. Sevón, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate-               General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on                12 February 1998, in which it:
12 February 1998, in which it:
                                                                     1. declares that, by not adopting within the prescribed
                                                                          period the laws, regulations and administrative
1. declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed               provisions necessary in order to comply with Council
     period the laws, regulations and administrative                      Directive 92/74/EEC of 22 September 1992 widening
     provisions necessary to comply with Commission                       the scope of Directive 81/851/EEC on the
     Directive 94/2/EC of 21 January 1994 implementing                    approximation of provisions laid down by law,
     Council Directive 92/75/EEC with regard to energy                    regulation or administrative action relating to
     labelling of househould electric refrigerators, freezers             veterinary medicinal products and laying down
     and their combinations, the Italian Republic has failed              additional provisions on homeopathic veterinary
     to fulfil its obligations under Article 4 of that                    medicinal products, the French Republic has failed to
     Directive;                                                           fulfil its obligations under the first subparagraph of
                                                                          Article 10(1) thereof;
2. orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                     2. orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 181, 14.6.1997.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 166, 31.5.1997.


title: Joined Cases C-283/06 and C-312/06: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 October 2007 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Zala Megyei Bíróság, Legfelsőbb Bíróság — Republic of Hungary) — KÖGÁZ rt, E-ON IS Hungary kft, E-ON DÉDÁSZ rt, Schneider Electric Hungária rt, TESCO Áruházak rt, OTP Garancia Biztosító rt, OTP Bank rt, ERSTE Bank Hungary rt, Vodafone Magyarország Mobil Távközlési rt (C-283/06) v Zala Megyei Közigazgatási Hivatal Vezetője, and OTP Garancia Biztosító rt v Vas Megyei Közigazgatási Hivatal (C-312/06) (Sixth VAT Directive — Article 33(1) — Definition of turnover taxes — Local business tax)

text:
               8.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/13

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 October 2007 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Zala Megyei Bíróság, Legfelsőbb Bíróság — Republic of Hungary) — KÖGÁZ rt, E-ON IS Hungary kft, E-ON DÉDÁSZ rt, Schneider Electric Hungária rt, TESCO Áruházak rt, OTP Garancia Biztosító rt, OTP Bank rt, ERSTE Bank Hungary rt, Vodafone Magyarország Mobil Távközlési rt (C-283/06) v Zala Megyei Közigazgatási Hivatal Vezetője, and OTP Garancia Biztosító rt v Vas Megyei Közigazgatási Hivatal (C-312/06)
   (Joined Cases C-283/06 and C-312/06) (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Article 33(1) - Definition of ‘turnover taxes’ - Local business tax)
   (2007/C 297/19)
   Language of the case: Hungarian
   Referring courts
   Zala Megyei Bíróság, Legfelsőbb Bíróság
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: KÖGÁZ rt, E-ON IS Hungary kft, E-ON DÉDÁSZ rt, Schneider Electric Hungária rt, TESCO Áruházak rt, OTP Garancia Biztosító rt, OTP Bank rt, ERSTE Bank Hungary rt, Vodafone Magyarország Mobil Távközlési rt (C-283/06), OTP Garancia Biztosító rt (C-312/06)

      Defendants: Zala Megyei Közigazgatási Hivatal Vezetője (C-283/06), Vas Megyei Közigazgatási Hivatal (C-312/06)
   Re:
   References for a preliminary ruling — Zala Megyei Bíróság, Legfelsőbb Bíróság — Intepretation of Annex X (list referred to in Article 24 of the Act of Accession: Hungary), Chapter 4 (Competition policy), point 3(a), to the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded (OJ 2003 L 236, p. 846) and of Article 33 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Prohibition of taxes which can be characterised as turnover taxes — National legislation authorising local authorities to introduce a tax on economic operations — Possibility, granted by the Act of Accession, for the Member State to apply reductions for that tax during a transitional period.
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 33(1) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 91/680/EEC of 16 December 1991 supplementing the common system of value added tax and amending Directive 77/388 with a view to the abolition of fiscal frontiers, must be interpreted as not precluding the maintenance of a charge to tax with characteristics such as those of the tax at issue in the main proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 212, 2.9.2006,

      OJ C 237, 30.9.2006.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 June 2005 in Case T-186/04 Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for registration of Community work mark SPAFORM — Earlier word marks SPA and SPA THERMES — Partial rejection of the opposition — Rule 18(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)

text:
               20.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/21

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 15 June 2005
   in Case T-186/04 Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for registration of Community work mark SPAFORM - Earlier word marks SPA and SPA THERMES - Partial rejection of the opposition - Rule 18(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)
   (2005/C 205/38)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case T-186/04, Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV, established in Spa (Belgium), represented by L. de Brouwer, E. Cornu, É. De Gryse and D. Moreau, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agent: G. Schneider), the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court of First Instance, being Spaform Ltd, established in Southampton (United Kingdom), represented by J. Gardner and A. Howard, Barristers, application for annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 February 2004 (Case R 827/2002-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV and Spaform Ltd — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President, N.J. Forwood and S. Papasavvas, Judges; B. Pastor, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 15 June 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 25 February 2004 (Case R 827/2002-4) in part, in so far as it declares inadmissible the opposition based on Article 8(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark, as regards the SPA mark registered in Benelux under No 389 230;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the application;

               3.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant;

               4.

               Orders the intervener to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 201 of 7.8.2004


title: Case T-355/14: Order of the General Court of 1 December 2016 — STC v Commission (Public services contracts — Tendering procedure — Construction and maintenance of a tri-generation plant with a gas turbine — Rejection of the tender submitted by a tenderer — Withdrawl of the contested measure — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               23.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/33

         Order of the General Court of 1 December 2016 — STC v Commission
   (Case T-355/14) (1)

   ((Public services contracts - Tendering procedure - Construction and maintenance of a tri-generation plant with a gas turbine - Rejection of the tender submitted by a tenderer - Withdrawl of the contested measure - No need to adjudicate))
   (2017/C 022/44)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: STC SpA (Forlì, Italy) (represented by: A. Marelli and G. Delucca, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially L. Di Paolo, F. Moro and L. Cappelletti, then L. Di Paolo and F. Moro, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: CPL Concordia Soc. coop. (Concordia Sulla Secchia, Italy) (represented by: A. Penta, lawyer)

      Re:

   First, an application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment, (i), of the Commission’s decision of 3 April 2014 rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant in tendering procedure JRC IPR 2013 C04 0031 OC for the construction and maintenance of a tri-generation plant with a gas turbine (OJ 2013/S 137-237146) on the site of the Joint Research Centre (JRC) in Ispra (Italy), (ii) of the Commission’s decision awarding the contract to CPL Concordia and any connected measure, prior or subsequent to that decision, including the potential decision approving the contract and, where appropriate, the contract itself, (iii) the Commission’s letter of 15 April 2014 rejecting the applicant’s request for access to the tendering documents, and second, application requesting, principally, an order for the Commission to revoke the award of the contract and to grant that contract to the applicant, and alternatively, if the harm cannot be repaired, to order the Commission to compensate the applicant for the harm suffered.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

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

               2.

               CPL Concordia Soc. coop’s forms of order sought are rejected as being manifestly inadmissible.

               3.

               Each party shall bear its own costs relating to the present proceedings and to the proceedings for interim relief.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.


title: Case T-415/07: Action brought on 21 November 2007 — RedEnvelope v OHIM — Red Letter Days (redENVELOPE)

text:
               12.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 8/25

         Action brought on 21 November 2007 — RedEnvelope v OHIM — Red Letter Days (redENVELOPE)
   (Case T-415/07)
   (2008/C 8/45)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: RedEnvelope Inc. (San Francisco, United States) (represented by: A. Poulter, Solicitor)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Red Letter Days Ltd (London, United Kingdom)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal dated 14 September 2007, No R 1117/2005-1, in so far as the decision provided for the admission of new evidence in support of the grounds of opposition;

               —

               order that the defendant pays the applicant's costs of this appeal.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘redENVELOPE’ for services in classes 35 and 42 — application No 1 601 327

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Red Letter Days Ltd

      Mark or sign cited: The registered and non-registered national word and figurative marks ‘RED LETTER’, ‘RED LETTER DAYS’ and ‘RED LETTER DAYS PLC’ for goods and services in classes 9, 14, 16, 18, 21, 22, 25, 26, 33, 36, 39, 41, 42, 43 and 44

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition partially upheld

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the Opposition Division's decision and remittal of the case to the Opposition Division for further consideration in so far as it regards Article 8(4) of Council Regulation No 40/94

      Pleas in law: Violation of Article 74(2) of Council Regulation No 40/94, as the Board of Appeal admitted new evidence, which will allow the Opposition Division to make a decision based on evidence, which was not available earlier in the proceedings and to which the applicant has not had an opportunity to respond before the Opposition Division.


title: Case C-390/10: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 April 2011 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2007/36/EC — Exercise of certain rights of shareholders in listed companies — Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

text:
               18.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/6

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 April 2011 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-390/10) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2007/36/EC - Exercise of certain rights of shareholders in listed companies - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)
   2011/C 179/09
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Braun and de Schietere de Lophem, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: C. Schiltz, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to take or communicate, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2007/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the exercise of certain rights of shareholders in listed companies (OJ L 184, p. 17)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2007/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the exercise of certain rights of shareholders in listed companies, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 274, 9.10.2010.


title: Case C-420/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy), lodged on 14 September 2012 — Anitrav v Roma Capitale

text:
               24.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 366/26

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy), lodged on 14 September 2012 — Anitrav v Roma Capitale
   (Case C-420/12)
   2012/C 366/46
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Associazione Nazionale Imprese Trasporto Viaggiatori (Anitrav)

      Defendant: Roma Capitale

      Question referred

   Do Article 49 TFEU, Article 3 TEU, Articles 3 TFEU, 4 TFEU, 5 TFEU, 6 TFEU, 101 TFEU and 102 TFEU preclude the application of Articles 3(3), 8(3) and 11 of Law No 21 of 1992 [on the carriage of passengers by public non-scheduled car and coach services] in so far as the latter provisions respectively provide that ‘[t]he registered office of the carrier, and the garage, must be located, exclusively, within the territory of the municipality which issued the authorisation’, that ‘[i]n order to obtain and maintain an authorisation for a car- and driver-hire service it is necessary to have the use, pursuant to a valid legal title, of a registered office, a garage or a vehicle rank located in the territory of the municipality which issued the authorisation’ and that ‘[b]ookings for car- and driver-hire services shall take place at the garage. Each individual car- and driver-hire service must begin and end at the garage located in the municipality in which the authorisation was issued, returning to that garage, although the collection of the user and the user’s arrival at his destination may take place also in other municipalities’?


title: Case C-524/12 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 November 2013 — TeamBank AG Nürnberg v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Fercredit Servizi Finanziari SpA (Appeal — Community trade mark — Figurative mark f@ir Credit — Opposition by the proprietor of the Community figurative mark FERCREDIT — Refusal of registration)

text:
               22.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 52/22

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 November 2013 — TeamBank AG Nürnberg v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Fercredit Servizi Finanziari SpA
   (Case C-524/12 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Figurative mark f@ir Credit - Opposition by the proprietor of the Community figurative mark FERCREDIT - Refusal of registration)
   2014/C 52/37
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: TeamBank AG Nürnberg (represented by: D. Terheggen, lawyer)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent), Fercredit Servizi Finanziari SpA (represented by: G Petrocchi, A. Masetti Zannini de Concina and R. Cartella, lawyers)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 19 September 2012 in Case T-220/11 TeamBank v OHMI — Fercredit Servizi Finanziari, by which the General Court dismissed the action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 February 2011 (Case R 719/2010-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Fercredit Servizi Finanziari SpA and TeamBank AG Nürnberg — Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1) — Likelihood of confusion between a figurative sign including the word element ‘f@ir Credit’ and an earlier international figurative mark including the word element ‘FERCREDIT’.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Team Bank AG Nürnberg is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 9, 12.1.2013.


21.10.2000            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 302/23
       Removal from the register of Case C-33/00 (1)                       Removal from the register of Case C-231/99 (1)
                       (2000/C 302/52)                                                       (2000/C 302/56)
By order of 26 June 2000 the President of the Court of Justice      By order of 6 July 2000 the President of the Court of Justice of
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from            the European Communities has ordered the removal from the
the register of Case C-33/00: Commission of the European            register of Case C-231/99: Commission of the European
Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.                                   Communities v Republic of Austria.
(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.                                           (1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-34/00 (1)                       Removal from the register of Case C-495/99 (1)
                       (2000/C 302/53)                                                       (2000/C 302/57)
By order of 26 June 2000 the President of the Court of Justice      By order of 6 July 2000 the President of the Court of Justice of
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from            the European Communities has ordered the removal from the
the register of Case C-34/00: Commission of the European            register of Case C-495/99: Commission of the European
Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.                                   Communities v French Republic.
(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.                                           (1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-342/99 (1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-432/97 (1)
                       (2000/C 302/54)                                                       (2000/C 302/58)
By order of 28 June 2000 the President of the Court of Justice      By order of 7 July 2000, the President of the Fifth Chamber of
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from            the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered
the register of Case C-342/99 (reference for a preliminary          the removal from the register of Case C-432/97: Commission
ruling from Landesgericht Korneuburg): New Yorker S.H.K.            of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
Jeans GmbH v SIMPLEX-1000ST.
                                                                    (1) OJ C 55 of 20.2.1998.
(1) OJ C 352 of 4.12.1999.
                                                                           Removal from the register of Case C-271/99 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case   C-504/99 (1)
                                                                                (2000/C 302/59)
                       (2000/C 302/55)
                                                                    By order of 11 July 2000, the President of the Sixth Chamber
By order of 28 June 2000 the President of the Court of Justice      of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from            ordered the removal from the register of Case C-271/99:
the register of Case C-504/99 Commission of the European            Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of
Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.                                   Belgium.
(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.                                           (1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.


title: Case T-263/17: Action brought on 3 May 2017 — SD v EIGE

text:
               24.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/48

         Action brought on 3 May 2017 — SD v EIGE
   (Case T-263/17)
   (2017/C 239/61)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: SD (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, laywers)

      Defendant: European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul EIGE’s implicit decision of 26 August 2016, rejecting the applicant’s request dated 26 April 2016 for a second renewal of his contract of employment;

               —

               annul also, in so far as necessary, EIGE’s decision of 20 January 2017, notified to the applicant on 23 January 2017, rejecting the applicant’s complaint lodged on 3 October 2016 against EIGE’s implicit decision;

               —

               compensate the applicant for the material and moral prejudice suffered;

               —

               reimburse all the costs incurred in the present appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging violation of the duty to state reasons and accordingly of the principle of good administration.

                           —

                           The defendant failed to provide the applicant with a reasoned decision on the substance of the request and subsequent complaint. This total lack of statement of reasons infringes the duty to state reasons and the principle of good administration.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 8 of the Conditions of Employment of other servants of the EU and of EIGE Decision No 82 of 28 July 2014 on contract renewal/non-renewal procedure applicable to temporary and contract agents (‘Decision 82’).

                           —

                           The defendant failed properly to exercise the discretionary powers granted to it under the above provisions and did not carry out a full or detailed examination of all the relevant facts of the case.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging procedural irregularities including the violation of the internal procedural rules set out in Decision 82, the breach of the rights of defence, the right to be heard, the principle of good administration and the duty of care.

                           —

                           The defendant not only failed to follow the procedure provided for by Decision 82 but also failed to hear the applicant’s views effectively in any other way. It thus failed, before taking the decision of 26 August 2016, to obtain relevant information from the applicant as to his interests and did not allow the applicant to properly prepare his defence.


title: Case T-3/13: Order of the General Court of 29 September 2014  — Ronja v Commission (Action for annulment — Access to documents — Regulation (EC) 1049/2001 — Documents exchanged in connection with a complaint concerning the transposition of Directive 2001/37/EC — Documents emanating from a Member State — Objection made by the Member State — Partial refusal of access — Decision granting full access following a measure of organisation of procedure — No need to adjudicate — Documents emanating from the Commission — Decision granting full access — Failure by the Commission to initiate proceedings for failure to fulfil obligations against Austria — Inadmissibility)

text:
               17.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 409/40

         Order of the General Court of 29 September 2014 — Ronja v Commission
   (Case T-3/13) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) 1049/2001 - Documents exchanged in connection with a complaint concerning the transposition of Directive 2001/37/EC - Documents emanating from a Member State - Objection made by the Member State - Partial refusal of access - Decision granting full access following a measure of organisation of procedure - No need to adjudicate - Documents emanating from the Commission - Decision granting full access - Failure by the Commission to initiate proceedings for failure to fulfil obligations against Austria - Inadmissibility))
   2014/C 409/57
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Ronja s.r.o. (Znojmo, Czech Republic) (represented by: E. Engin-Deniz, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Noll-Ehlers and C. Zadra, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application, firstly, for annulment of the decisions of the Commission of 6 September and 8 November 2012 refusing to grant the applicant full access to certain letters exchanged between the Commission and the Republic of Austria concerning complaint No 2008/4340 relating to the transposition of Directive 2001/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2001 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products (OJ 2001 L 194, p. 26) and, secondly, for a declaration that the Commission unlawfully failed to initiate proceedings for failure to fulfil obligations against the Republic of Austria for infringement of Article 13 of Directive 2001/37 and Article 34 TFEU.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the second head of claim of Ronja s.r.o. in so far as it concerns the annulment of the decision of the European Commission of 8 November 2012 refusing to grant full access to the letters from the Republic of Austria of 19 February and 8 May 2009 sent to the Commission and exchanged between them in relation to complaint No 2008/4340 made by Ronja relating to the transposition of Directive 2001/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2001 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products (OJ 2001 L 194, p. 26).

               2.

               The remainder of the action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               3.

               Ronja shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the Commission in respect of the claim for annulment in so far as it is directed against the decision of the Commission of 6 September 2012, by which the Commission granted access to the letters of 23 December 2008 and 18 March 2009, sent to the Republic of Austria and exchanged between them in relation to complaint No 2008/4340, that claim seeking full access to the documentation requested, and the claim seeking a declaration that the Commission unlawfully failed to initiate proceedings for failure to fulfil obligations against the Republic of Austria.

               4.

               The Commission shall bearing its own costs and pay the costs incurred by Ronja in respect of the claim for annulment in so far as it is directed against its decision of 8 November 2012.

      (1)  OJ C 79, 16.3.2013.