title: Case T-588/10: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2012 — Greece v Commission (EAGGF — Guarantee Section — Expenditure excluded from financing — Arable crops — Dried grapes — Raw tobacco — Specific measures for the smaller Aegean islands concerning certain agricultural products — Sheepmeat and goatmeat — Cross compliance — Proportionality)

text:
               9.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/18

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2012 — Greece v Commission
   (Case T-588/10) (1)

   (EAGGF - Guarantee Section - Expenditure excluded from financing - Arable crops - Dried grapes - Raw tobacco - Specific measures for the smaller Aegean islands concerning certain agricultural products - Sheepmeat and goatmeat - Cross compliance - Proportionality)
   2013/C 38/30
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: I. Chalkias, E. Leftheriotou and X. Basakou, Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou, H. Tserepa-Lacombe and A. Markoulli, Agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of Commission Decision 2010/668/EU of 4 November 2010 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2010 L 288, p. 24), in so far as that decision excludes certain expenditure incurred by the Hellenic Republic.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 89, 19.3.2011.


title: Case T-86/07: Action brought on 21 March 2007 — Deichmann-Schuhe v OHIM — Design for Woman (DEITECH)

text:
               26.5.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 117/27

         Action brought on 21 March 2007 — Deichmann-Schuhe v OHIM — Design for Woman (DEITECH)
   (Case T-86/07)
   (2007/C 117/42)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Heinrich Deichmann-Schuhe GmbH & Co. KG (Essen, Germany) (represented by: O. Rauscher, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Design for Woman SA
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 22 January 2007 (case number R 791/2006-2);

               —

               reject Community trade mark application No 3 378 643 as regards all goods in Class 25 (Clothing, footwear, headgear);

               —

               order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Design for Woman SA

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘DEITECH ’for goods in Classes 18 and 25 (Application No 3 378 643)

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: The German figurative mark ‘DEI-tex ’for goods in Class 25 and the international figurative mark ‘DEI-tex ’for goods in Class 25, the opposition having been brought against registration in Class 25

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), as the evidence submitted by the applicant was not regarded as sufficient proof of genuine use and infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 as there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks in opposition.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).


title: Case C-599/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 22 November 2013 — Somalische Vereniging Amsterdam en Omgeving (Somvao); other party: Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

text:
               25.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/12

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 22 November 2013 — Somalische Vereniging Amsterdam en Omgeving (Somvao); other party: Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie
   (Case C-599/13)
   2014/C 24/22
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Raad van State

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Somalische Vereniging Amsterdam en Omgeving (Somvao)

      Other party: Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 (1) of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests or Article 53b(2)(c) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (2) of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities, as amended by Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1995/2006 (3) of 13 December 2006, provide national authorities with a legal basis on which they may alter, to the detriment of a grant recipient, and seek to recover from that recipient a grant already determined and provided from the European Refugee Fund?

               2.

               Does Article 25(2) of Council Decision 2004/904/EC (4) of 2 December 2004 establishing the European Refugee Fund for the period 2005 to 2010 constitute a legal basis on which national authorities may alter, to the detriment of a grant recipient, and seek to recover from that recipient a grant already determined and provided from the European Refugee Fund, without there being any need for authority to do so under national law?

      (1)  OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1.

      (3)  OJ 2006 L 390, p. 1.

      (4)  OJ 2004 L 381, p. 52.


Important legal notice

|

E2001P0008

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Borgarting lagmannsrett by decision of that court of 11 October 2001 in the case of Gunnar Amundsen and Others v Vectura AS (Case E-8/01)

Official Journal C 081 , 04/04/2002 P. 0020 - 0020 Official Journal 134 , 06/06/2002 P. 0005 - 0005

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Borgarting lagmannsrett by decision of that court of 11 October 2001 in the case of Gunnar Amundsen and Others v. Vectura AS(Case E-8/01)(2002/C 134/06)A request has been made to the EFTA Court by decision of 11 October 2001 of Borgarting lagmannsrett (Borgarting Court of Appeal), Norway, which was received at the Court Registry on 5 November 2001, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Gunnar Amundsen and Others v. Vectura AS, on the following questions:1. Will a market share of over 60 % in the relevant market, in itself be sufficient for a finding that an undertaking has a dominant position under Article 54 of the EEA Agreement?2. If question 1 is answered in the negative, will a market share of over 60 % in the relevant market in itself create a presumption that an undertaking has a dominant position under Article 54 of the EEA Agreement?3. If question 2 is answered in the affirmative, and an undertaking has such a market share, what other market conditions in the relevant market might imply that the undertaking nonetheless does not have a dominant position under Article 54 of the EEA Agreement?4. If a dominant undertaking provides marketing support to some customers and not to others, could that constitute abuse under Article 54 of the EEA Agreement, if that marketing support:(i) must be viewed in its entirety as being a price discount for the dominant undertaking's performance of distribution services for the customers in question?(ii) must be viewed in its entirety as being compensation for marketing services which the customers in question provide to the undertaking?(iii) must be viewed partially as being compensation for marketing services which the customers in question provide to the undertaking, and partially as a price discount for the dominant undertaking's performance of distribution services for the customers in question?5. If a dominant undertaking has unjustifiably treated its customers differently, could a finding of infringement of Article 54 of the European Economic Agreement be made, without a concurrent finding that the differential treatment has impaired competition in the market in which the customers compete?


title: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 June 2002 in Case C-204/00 P: Aalborg Portland A/S v Commission of the European Communities (Appeals — Competition — Cement — Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now, Article 81(1) EC) — Appeal in part manifestly unfounded)

text:
10.8.2002               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 191/9
      new plants and 1 December 1996 as regards existing plants,            1.    Declares that, by maintaining a condition relating to duration
      the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under              of residence in the territory of Luxembourg for the grant of the
      Article 4(1) of Directive 89/369 and Articles 2(a) and 4 of                 guaranteed minimum income provided for by its legislation, the
      Directive 89/429;                                                           Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                                under Article 7(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the
2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.                                Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for
                                                                                workers within the Community and Article 43 EC;
                                                                            2.    Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 108 of 7.4.2001.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 289 of 13.10.2001.
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT
                        (Fourth Chamber)
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                          of 20 June 2002
                                                                                of 5 June 2002
in Case C-299/01: Commission of the European Communi-
            ties v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)                            in Case C-204/00 P: Aalborg Portland A/S v Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities (1)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                      (Appeals — Competition — Cement — Article 85(1) of the
Article 7(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 — Freedom of                    EC Treaty (now, Article 81(1) EC) — Appeal in part
movement for workers — Article 43 EC — Freedom of                                                  manifestly unfounded)
establishment — Social advantages — Guaranteed mini-
                            mum income)
                                                                                (2002/C 191/15)
                          (2002/C 191/14)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Danish)
                    (Language of the case: French)                          (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-204/00 P: Aalborg Portland A/S, established in
                                                                            Aalborg (Denmark), represented by K. Dyekjær-Hansen and
                                                                            K. Høegh, lawyers — appeal against the judgment of the
In Case C-299/01, Commission of the European Communities                    Court of First Instance of the European Communities, Fourth
(Agent: H. Michard) v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Agent:                     Chamber, Extended Composition, of 15 March 2000 in Joined
N. Mackel): Application for a declaration that, by maintaining              Cases T-25/95, T-36/95, T-30/95 to T-32/95, T-34/95 to
a condition relating to duration of residence in the territory of           T-39/95, T-42/95 to T-46/95, T-48/95, T-50/95 to T-65/95,
Luxembourg for the grant of a guaranteed minimum income,                    T-68/95 to T-71/95, T-87/95 to T-88/95 and T-103/95 to
the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its                      T-104/95 Cimenteries CBR and Others v Commission [2000]
obligations under Article 7(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/                 ECR II-491, seeking to have that judgment partially set aside,
68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of                          the other party to the proceedings being Commission of
movement for workers within the Community (OJ, English                      the European Communities (Agents: R. Lyal, assisted by
Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475) and Article 43 EC, the Court             H.P. Hartvig) &mdash the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of
(Fourth Chamber), composed of: S. von Bahr, President of the                P. Jann, President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward (Rappor-
Chamber, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur) and C.W.A. Timmer-                      teur), A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet and A. Rosas, Judges; D. Ruiz-
mans, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General;                     Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 20 June 2002, in               an order on 5 June 2002, the operative part of which is as
which it:                                                                   follows:
 ---pagebreak--- C 191/10                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          10.8.2002
1.    The second ground of appeal is dismissed in its entirety as in               —     the second, third and seventh heads of the fourth plea in
      part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded.                     law,
2.    Costs are reserved.                                                          with the exception, as regards the fourteenth head of the third
                                                                                plea in law and the third head of the fourth plea in law, of the
                                                                                arguments based on the Court of First Instance’s assessment of
(1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.                                                         the overall responsibility of the undertakings involved in the
                                                                                single infringement;
                                                                             2.    Costs are reserved.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.
                      ORDER OF THE COURT
                            (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT
                             of 5 June 2002
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
in Case C-205/00: Irish Cement Ltd v Commission of the
                     European Communities (1)
                                                                                of 5 June 2002
(Appeal — Competition — Cement — Article 85(1) of the
EC Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) — Appeal in part                            in Case C-211/00 P: Ciments Français SA v Commission
 manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)                                   of the European Communities (1)
                                                                             (Appeals — Competition — Cement — Article 85(1) of the
                           (2002/C 191/16)
                                                                             EC Treaty (now, Article 81(1) EC) — Appeal in part
                                                                                manifestly unfounded)
                     (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (2002/C 191/17)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
In Case C-205/00 P, Irish Cement Ltd, established in Dublin
(Ireland), represented by P. Sreenan, SC, instructed by J. Glack-
in, solicitor, with an address for service in Luxembourg: Appeal             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
against the judgment of the Fourth Chamber, Extended                                             in the European Court Reports)
Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities in Joined Cases T-25/95, T-26/95, T-30/95 to
T-32/95, T-34/95 to T-39/95, T-42/95 to T-46/95, T-48/95,
T-50/95 to T-65/95, T-68/95 to T-71/95, T-87/95, T-88/95,                    In Case C-211/00 P: Ciments Français SA, established in Paris,
T-103/95 and T-104/95 Cimenteries CBR and Others v                           represented by A. Winckler, lawyers — appeal against the
Commission [2000] ECR II-491, seeking to have that judgment                  judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
set aside in part, the other party to the proceedings being:                 Communities, Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition, of
Commission of the European Communities (Agent: R. Lyal),                     15 March 2000 in Joined Cases T-25/95, T-36/95, T-30/95 to
the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of                T-32/95, T-34/95 to T-39/95, T-42/95 to T-46/95, T-48/95,
the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), A. La Pergola,                      T-50/95 to T-65/95, T-68/95 to T-71/95, T-87/95 to T-88/95
M. Wathelet and A. Rosas, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,                    and T-103/95 to T-104/95 Cimenteries CBR and Others v
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on                  Commission [2000] ECR II-491, seeking to have that judgment
5 June 2002, the operative part of which is as follows:                      partially set aside, the other party to the proceedings being
                                                                             Commission of the European Communities (Agents: R. Lyal,
                                                                             assisted by N. Coutrelis) — the Court (Fifth Chamber),
1.    The following are rejected as manifestly inadmissible and              composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward
      manifestly unfounded:                                                  (Rapporteur), A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet and A. Rosas, Judges;
                                                                             D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,
      —     the first to third, ninth to twelfth and fourteenth heads of     made an order on 5 June 2002, the operative part of which is
            the third plea in law,                                           as follows:


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Köln, by order of that court of 13 March 1998 in proceedings concerning an administrative fine imposed on Hans-Jürgen Hartmann (Case C-162/98)

text:
4.7.98                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 209/23
     subsequently amended, and in particular Articles 3(1),         presumption in respect of the war years if the person
     5(3) and 6(2) thereof, valid, in the light of Article 40       concerned can claim a pension under a foreign scheme for
     and Articles 30 to 36 of the EC Treaty?                        those periods of employment) constitute a clause for
                                                                    reduction, suspension or withdrawal declared inapplicable
(1) OJ L 170, 28.6.1997, p. 3.                                      by the new provisions of Regulation (EEC) No 1248/92?
(2) OJ L 177, 1.7.1981, p. 4.
                                                                    (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1248/92 of 30 April 1992
                                                                        amending Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of
                                                                        social security schemes¼ (OJ L 136, 19.5.1992, p. 7).
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Third Chamber
of the Tribunal de Travail, Mons, by judgment of that
court of 21 April 1998, in the case of Georges Platbrood            Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
           v. Office National des Pensions (ONP)                    Oberlandesgericht Köln, by order of that court of
                       (Case C-161/98)                              13 March 1998 in proceedings concerning an
                                                                       administrative fine imposed on Hans-Jürgen Hartmann
                         (98/C 209/45)
                                                                                (Case C-162/98)
                                                                                (98/C 209/46)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Third
                                                                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Chamber of the Tribunal de Travail (Labour Tribunal),
                                                                    European Communities by order of the Oberlandesgericht
Mons, of 21 April 1998, which was received at the Court
                                                                    Köln (Higher Regional Court, Cologne) of 13 March
Registry on 27 April 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                    1998, received at the Court Registry on 27 April 1998, for
case of Georges Platbrood v. Office National des Pensions
                                                                    a preliminary ruling in the proceedings concerning an
(ONP), on the following questions:
                                                                    administrative fine imposed on Hans-Jürgen Hartmann,
                                                                    on the following question (1):
Do the new provisions in Regulation (EEC) No 1248/92
requiere Belgium to grant a beneficiary the right to a              Does the exemption from charges afforded to motor
retirement pension calculated on the basis of a work                vehicles belonging to road maintenance and operation
record comprising in part years in the course of which              services' apply only to vehicles belonging to regional and/
presumed or notional contributions must be taken into               or local authorities, or does it also apply to vehicles
account Ð unless the person concerned can claim a                   belonging to private contractors acting on behalf of such
pension under a foreign scheme for those periods of                 authorities?
employment (principle that there is a legal presumption in
respect of the war years, as laid down by Article 32(1) of          In the latter case:
the Royal Decree of 21 December 1967 establishing
general rules for the retirement and survival pension               does the exemption from charges apply only in respect of
scheme for employees prior to its repeal by the Royal               journeys undertaken for that purpose, or does it apply
Decree of 14 December 1990 Ð although it remains                    generally to all journeys made using such vehicles, thus
applicable to retirement pensions which became payable              including those undertaken on business relating to the
for the first time before 1 January 1991) in circumstances          contractor's manufacturing operations?
where, specifically, the person concerned has been
awarded a retirement pension payable by Germany on the              (1) Concerning the interpretation of Article 4(1) of the Agreement
basis of actual contributions corresponding to the                      of 9 February 1994 on the levying of charges for the use of
presumed or notional contributions which may be taken                   certain roads by heavy commercial vehicles (Bundesgesetzblatt
                                                                        [Federal Gazette], Part II, p. 1768).
into account under the Belgian legislation?
In other words, must the new provisions of Regulation
(EEC) No 1248/92 (1) be interpreted as authorising
overlapping, without reduction, suspension or withdrawal
of a retirement pension awarded to a Belgian, payable by            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Seventh
Belgium and calculated on the basis of presumed or                  Chamber of the Tribunal Correctionel, Arlon, by
notional contributions by virtue of the principle that there        judgment of that court of 2 April 1998 in the case of
is a legal presumption in respect of the war years, as laid         MinisteÁre Public against AndreÂ Mazzoleni Ð parties
down by Article 32(1) of the Royal Decree of 21 December            claiming damages: Eric Guillaume, Michel Pedon,
1967 (subject to the reservation contained in that                  Christian Fondeur, Christian Simonin, JeÂrôme Canini;
provision whereby the person concerned may not,                      liable under civil law: Inter Surveillance Assistance SARL
however, claim a pension under a foreign scheme for those                                    (Case C-165/98)
periods of employment) with the benefit of a retirement
pension payable by Germany calculated on the basis of                                         (98/C 209/47)
actual contributions covering the same period or, on the
contrary, might the exception provided for by Article 32(1)         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
of the Royal Decree of 21 December 1967 (no legal                   European Communities by judgment of the Seventh


title: Action brought on 24 December 1996 by Lut Fabert-Goossens against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-217/96)

text:
No C 54/34           EN |               Official Journal of the European Communities                                   22 . 2 . 97
Action brought on 18 December 1996 by Giorgio Lebedef              Action brought on 23 December 1996 by Bernard
   against the Commission of the European Communities               Connolly against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
                      ( Case T-213/96 )
                                                                                Case T-2 14/96 )
                         ( 97/C 54/55 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 54/56 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                   An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities was brought before the Court of First
An action against the Commission of the European                   Instance of the European Communities on 23 December
Communities was brought before the Court of First                   1996 by Bernard Connolly, residing at Everberg ( Belgium ),
Instance of the European Communities on 18 December                represented by Jacques Sambon and Pierre-Paul Van
1996 by Giorgio Lebedef, residing in Senningerberg                 Gehuchten, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service
( Luxembourg ), represented by Gilles Bouneou, of the              in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 rue du
Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in                     Fort Rheinsheim .
Luxembourg at his Chambers, 15 avenue du Bois .
                                                                   The applicant claims that the Court should :
The applicant claims that the Court should :                       — order the Commission to pay the applicant the sum of
                                                                          Bfrs 750 000 as compensation for the damage caused
                                                                          by the facts giving rise to the action,
— order the Commission to pay Giorgio Lebedef                      — order the Commission to pay the costs .
    compensation of Bfrs 100 000 or such other sum as
    the Court may think fit,
                                                                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                   The applicant, who is the same as in Cases T-203/95 ('),
— reserve to the applicant the right to increase his claim         T-34/96 ( 2 ) and T-163/96 (•*), alleges that the Commission
    during the proceeding and as may appear appropriate,           has waged a particularly harsh campaign against him
                                                                   concurrently with disciplinary proceedings, following the
                                                                   publication of his book The rotten heart of Europe: The
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                           dirty war for Europe 's money. He considers that this
                                                                   campaign was based on insults, abuse and defamation;
                                                                   that is to say, on conduct incompatible with any
                                                                   behaviour appropriate to rational , active administration .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                   In support of his claims, the applicant merely states that
                                                                   the facts that do not have the nature of decisions but
The applicant, who is Secretary-General of the union               which caused this action to be introduced constitute a
'Action & Defense — Luxembourg', seeks to appeal                   breach of the second paragraph of Article 24 of the Staff
against the decisions refusing the representatives of that         Regulations for which the defendant institution must incur
union time off work and the necessary means ( invitations,         liability.
essential information, travel and subsistence expenses ) to
enable them to attend meetings of the trade unions or staff        O OJ No C 351 , 30 . 12 . 1995 , p . 16 .
associations and the Commission relating to general staff          ( 2 ) OJ No C 133 , 1 . 5 . 1996 , p. 32 .
matters, in particular in respect of the meetings of               (') OJ No C 370 , 7. 12 . 1996 , p . 18 .
8 January 1996, the contact committee of 17 January
1996 and the concerted political planning of 2 February
1996 , brought forward to 1 February 1996 .
                                                                   Action brought on 24 December 1996 by Lut Fabert
In support of his claims, the applicant alleges breach of          Goossens against the Commission of the European
Article 24 of the Staff Regulations, of the decision of the                                       Communities
Council of 23 June 1981 establishing a consultation
procedure, failure to comply with general principles of law                                    ( Case T-217/96 )
and general principles of trade union law recognized by                                           ( 97/C 54/57 )
decisions of the Community judicature and Convention
No 151 of the General International Labour Conference .                              (Language of the case: French)
                                                                   An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                   Communities was brought before the Court of First
 ---pagebreak--- 22 . 2 . 97           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 54/35
Instance on 24 December 1996 by Lut Fabert-Goossens,                  unlawful . She also complains that there was no specific
resident in Blanden ( Belgium), represented by Marc-Albert            examination of her experience and alleges a manifest error
Lucas, of the Liege Bar, with an address for service in               of assessment .
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Evelyne Korn, 21 rue de
Nassau .                                                              In the further alternative, she challenges the decision to
                                                                      grade her in grade A 7 in post 50/T, when her grading
The applicant claims that the Court should :                          should have been at least in A 6/3 , alleging absence of a
                                                                      statement of reasons, breach of the second sentence of the
                                                                      second paragraph of Articles 25 and 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff
principally,                                                          Regulations and of the first paragraph of Article 2 of the
                                                                      Commission 's Decision of 1 September 1983 , breach of
— annul or declare unlawful the Commission 's decision                the duty to have regard for the interests of officials and
     not to recruit the applicant to post No 71/T/TFRH/93 ,           manifest error of assessment, and complaining of the
                                                                      unfair effect on her carreer.
— annul      the   Commission 's    decision   to   recruit the
     applicant to post 50T7XVI/93 ,
in the alternative,
                                                                      Action brought on 26 December 1996 by Paul Hodson
— annul the Commission's decision to grade the                           against the Commission of the European Communities
     applicant in grade 7 in post 50T/XVI/93 , when she                                      ( Case T-218/96 )
     should have been graded in grade A 5/3 ,
                                                                                97/C 54/58 )
in the further alternative,
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
— annul the Commission's decision to grade the                        An action against the Commission of the European
     applicant in grade 7 in post 50T/XVI/93 , when she               Communities was brought before the Court of First
     should at least have been graded in grade A 6/3 ,                Instance of the European Communities on 26 December
                                                                      1996 by Paul Flodson, residing at Brussels, represented by
at all events,                                                        Marc-Albert Lucas, of the Liege Bar, with an address for
                                                                      service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Evelyne Korn,
                                                                      21 rue de Nassau .
— order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                      — annul the appointing authority's decision on
The applicant, a member of the Commission's temporary                      12 December 1995 classifying the applicant in grade 7,
staff in grade A 7/3 , had, moreover, worked as a member
of the temporary staff in grade B in DG XVI since 1989 .              — annul the appointing authority's decision of
According to her staff report, the tasks entrusted to her                  26 September 1996 rejecting the applicant's
would normally have been performed by an official in                       administrative complaint No R/416/96 of 3 April
grade A. In 1993 the Commission published several                          1996 against that decision,
recruitment notices for category A, relating inter alia to
posts 71/T/TFRH/93 with the 'Human Resources,                         — order the Commission to pay the costs .
Education, Training and Youth' Task Force and 50T/XVI/
93 in DG XVI. The applicant's name was on the list of
suitable candidates for both those posts . The applicant has          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
already lodged a complaint against the Commission's
decision not to recruit her to post 71 /T and its decision to         The applicant, an official of the Commission in grade A 7/
grade her in grade 7 for post 50/T.                                   3 , challenges in particular the classification decision of the
                                                                      appointing authority of 12 December 1995 and requests a
                                                                      more favourable classification under Article 31 ( 2 ) of the
In the present application the applicant further claims that          Staff Regulations so that the appointing authority may
the failure to recruit her to post 71 /T was unlawful and             take into account his professional experience and
that there was an infringement of the rules relating to               qualifications . He claims that the grounds on which it is
withdrawal of administrative acts giving rise to rights.              based are not stated since the Commission did not
Moreover, the administration did not carry out a specific             respond to his specific and exact arguments with regard to
examination of the applicant's experience .                           the exceptional nature of his qualifications in comparison
                                                                      with the post for which he was engaged. Rather, the
In the alternative, the applicant maintains that her grading          Commission merely relied, in this regard, on altogether
in grade A 7 in post 50/T, when it should have been in                general arguments. It did not state why, in this case, the
A 5/3 pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 2 of the            qualifications claimed by the applicant could not be
Commission's Decision of 1 September 1983 , was                       considered to be exceptional . The two contested decisions


title: Case F-55/06: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 25 January 2007 — de Albuquerque v Commission (Officials — Reassignment — Article 7(1) of the Staff Regulations — Manifest error of assessment — Principle of equal treatment — Abuse of power — Interest of the service)

text:
               10.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/41

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 25 January 2007 — de Albuquerque v Commission
   (Case F-55/06) (1)

   (Officials - Reassignment - Article 7(1) of the Staff Regulations - Manifest error of assessment - Principle of equal treatment - Abuse of power - Interest of the service)
   (2007/C 56/77)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Augusto de Albuquerque (Woluwé-St-Étienne, Belgium) (represented by: C. Mourato, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and K. Herrmann, Agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of the decision of the Appointing Authority of 2 February 2006 dismissing the claim brought by the applicant against the decision of 23 September 2005 of the Director-General of DG INFSO to transfer the applicant in the interest of the service as head of unit INFSO.G.2 ‘Micro and nanosystems’.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 154 of 1.7.2006, p. 28.


title: Case C-21/06: Order of the President of the Court of  27 April 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               29.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/30

         Order of the President of the Court of 27 April 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-21/06) (1)

   (2006/C 178/55)

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 60, 11.3.2006.


title: Case C-507/13: Action brought on 20 September 2013 — United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v European Parliament, Council of the European Union

text:
               7.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 359/4

         Action brought on 20 September 2013 — United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v European Parliament, Council of the European Union
   (Case C-507/13)
   2013/C 359/05
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: E. Jenkinson, S. Behzadi-Spencer, agents and K. Beal QC)

      Defendants: European Parliament, Council of the European Union

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Article 94(1)(g), Article 94(2) and/or Articles 162(1) and (3) of the CRD IV Directive (1);

               —

               annul Articles 450(1)(d), (i) and/or (j) and/or 521(2) of the CR Regulation (2);

               —

               order that the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The United Kingdom (‘UK’) seeks the annulment of a limited number of provisions of certain legislative acts of the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, pursuant to Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’). The application for annulment concerns the ‘CRD-IV Package’, which entered into force on 17 July 2013. The package consists in a new Capital Requirements Directive, Directive 2013/36/EU; and a new Capital Requirements Regulation. The UK seeks to challenge certain provisions only in those measures, namely:

               (i)

               Articles 94(1)(g), 94(2) and 162(1) and (3) of Directive 2013/36/EU (‘the CRD IV Directive’), which was published in the Official Journal on 27 June 2013. Pursuant to Article 164, the Directive entered into force on 17 July 2013.

               (ii)

               Articles 450(1)(d), 450(1)(i), 450(1)(j) and 521(2) of the Capital Requirements Regulation, Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (‘the CR Regulation’). The CR Regulation was published in the Official Journal on 27 June 2013, but entered into force on 28 June 2013, pursuant to Article 521(1). It has to be applied from 1 January 2014 by virtue of Article 521(2).

         By the contested Acts, the Parliament and Council have put in place a number of measures addressing the variable remuneration that may permissibly be paid to certain employees of institutions (i.e. credit institutions and investment firms as defined in Article 4 of the CR Regulation). In particular Article 94(1)(g) of the CRD IV Directive has set a limit on the variable remuneration that can be paid to certain ‘material risk takers.’ This has been known colloquially as a ‘cap on bankers’ bonuses.’ Furthermore, by virtue of Article 94(2) of the CRD IV Directive, the EU legislature has assigned to the European Banking Authority (‘the EBA’), an agency established under Article 114 TFEU, the task of determining the criteria by which ‘material risk takers’ are identified in any particular institution and for developing guidelines relating to a discount rate that may be applied to long-term variable remuneration. Once identified, Article 450 of the CR Regulation requires institutions to publish certain details of those individuals’ salaries for public dissemination.
   The UK maintains that the contested provisions should be annulled on the following grounds:

               (i)

               The contested provisions have an inadequate Treaty legal base;

               (ii)

               The contested provisions are disproportionate and/or fail to comply with the principle of subsidiarity;

               (iii)

               The contested provisions have been brought into effect in a manner which infringes the principle of legal certainty;

               (iv)

               The assignment of certain tasks to the EBA and conferral of certain powers on the Commission is ultra vires;

               (v)

               The identified disclosure requirements in the CR Regulation offend principles of data protection and privacy under EU law.

               (vi)

               To the extent that Article 94(1)(g) is required to be applied to employees of institutions outside the EEA, it infringes Article 3(5) TEU and the principle of territoriality found in customary international law.

      (1)  Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on access to the activity of credit institutions and the prudential supervision of credit institutions and investment firms, amending Directive 2002/87/EC and repealing Directives 2006/48/EC and 2006/49/EC,OJ L 176, p. 338.

      (2)  Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012, OJ L 176, p. 1.


title: Case T-277/08: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 November 2009 — Bayer Healthcare LLC v OHIM — Uriach-Aquilea OTC (CITRACAL) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark CITRACAL — Earlier national word mark CICATRAL — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the goods — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               19.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 312/29

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 November 2009 — Bayer Healthcare LLC v OHIM — Uriach-Aquilea OTC (CITRACAL)
   (Case T-277/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark CITRACAL - Earlier national word mark CICATRAL - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the goods - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2009/C 312/47
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Bayer Healthcare LLC (Morristown, New Jersey, United States) (represented by: M. Edenborough, Barrister)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Botis, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Uriach-Aquilea OTC, SL (Palau-Solita i Plegamans, Spain)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 May 2008 (Case R 459/2007-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Uriach-Aquilea OTC, SL and Bayer Healthcare LLC

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders Bayer Healthcare LLC to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 236, 13.9.2008.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 9 July 1998 in Case C-343/97: Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium (Failure to fulfil obligations - Failure to transpose Directives 90/220/EEC and 94/51/EC)

text:
5.9.98                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 278/7
completion of professional education and training of at              1. declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
least three years' duration.                                              period all the laws, regulations and administrative
                                                                          provisions necessary to comply with
(1) OJ C 229, 2.9.1995.
                                                                          Ð Council Directive 90/220/EEC of 23 April 1990
                                                                              on the deliberate release into the environment of
                                                                              genetically modified organisms, and
                                                                          Ð Commission Directive 94/51/EC of 7 November
                                                                              1994 adapting to technical progress Council
                                                                              Directive 90/219/EEC on the contained use of
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                          genetically modified micro-organisms,
                       (Sixth Chamber)
                        of 9 July 1998                                    the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its
                                                                          obligations under Article 23 of Directive 90/220/EEC
in    Case   C-343/97: Commission of the European                         and Article 2 of Directive 94/51/EC;
           Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium (1)
(Failure to fulfil obligations Ð Failure to transpose
           Directives 90/220/EEC and 94/51/EC)                       2. orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
                        (98/C 278/11)
                                                                     (1) OJ C 357, 22.11.1997.
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)                                          (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 28 April 1998
                                                                         in Case C-116/96 REV: Reisebüro Binder GmbH (1)
In Case C-343/97: Commission of the European
Communities (Agent: Götz zur Hausen) v. Kingdom of                   (Revision of a judgment Ð Preliminary ruling Ð
Belgium (Agent: Anni Snoecx) Ð Application for a                                  Application manifestly inadmissible)
declaration that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
                                                                                (98/C 278/12)
period all the laws, regulations and administrative
provisions necessary to comply with:
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
Ð Council Directive 90/220/EEC of 23 April 1990 on the
     deliberate release into the environment of genetically
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
     modified organisms (OJ L 117, 18.5.1990, p. 15), and
                                                                               published in the European Court Reports)
Ð Commission Directive 94/51/EC of 7 November 1994                   In Case C-116/96 REV: Reisebüro Binder GmbH Ð
     adapting to technical progress Council Directive 90/            application for revision of the judgment of the Court of
     219/EEC on the contained use of genetically modified            6 November 1997 in Case C-116/96 Reisebüro Binder v.
     micro-organisms (OJ L 297, 18.11.1994, p. 29),                  Finanzamt Stuttgart-Körperschaften [1997] ECR I-6103 Ð
                                                                     the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of C. Gulmann,
                                                                     President of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida,
                                                                     D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur) and P.
the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations          Jann, Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate General; R. Grass,
under those Directives Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber)                   Registrar, made an order on 28 April 1998, the operative
composed of: H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur) President of                  part of which is as follows:
the Chamber, R. Schintgen, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray
and K. M. Ioannou, Judges; Advocate-General: A. La
Pergola, Registrar: R. Grass, has given a judgment on                1. The application        for   revision    is  dismissed    as
9 July 1998, in which it:                                                 inadmissible.


title: Case C-535/06 P: Appeal brought on 28 December 2006 by Moser Baer India Ltd against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 4 October 2006 in Case T-300/03: Moser Baer India Ltd v The Council of the European Communities

text:
               24.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/3

         Appeal brought on 28 December 2006 by Moser Baer India Ltd against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 4 October 2006 in Case T-300/03: Moser Baer India Ltd v The Council of the European Communities
   (Case C-535/06 P)
   (2007/C 69/06)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Appellant: Moser Baer India Ltd (represented by: K. Adamantopoulos, Δικηγόρος, R. MacLean and J. Branton, Solicitors)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, Commission of the European Communities, Committee of European CD-R and DVD+/-R Manufacturers (CECMA)
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the Court of First Instance's judgment of 4 October 2006 in case T-300/03, Moser Baer India Limited v Council of the European Union;

               —

               confirm the same form of order requested at the proceedings before the Court of First Instance in Case T-300/03, Moser Baer India Limited v Council of the European Union, namely to annul Council Regulation (EC) 960/2003 (1) in so far as it applies to the Appellant,

               —

               order the Council to bear the Appellant's costs of this appeal as well as the Appellant's costs in case T-300/03, Moser Baer India Limited v Council of the European Union.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Appellant relies upon three grounds of appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance.
   The first ground of appeal relates to the infringement by the Court of First Instance of the principles of coherence and diligent investigation in determining the amount of the countervailable duty that was assessed against imports of CD-Rs into the European Community under the Contested Regulation. Under this ground of appeal, the Appellant maintains that the Court of First Instance did not abide by the above-mentioned principles when confirming that the Community Institutions acted legally when classifying all the Appellant's assets in the category of assets that benefited for countervailable subsidy. This resulted in a failure of the Court of First Instance to abide by the above-mentioned principles of Community law.
   The second ground of appeal consists of two limbs namely that: (i) the Court of First Instance failed to appraise correctly the conflicting evidence on the record and in the Contested Regulation of a key element in the determination of injury, namely the price of Indian CD-R imports, over the course of the Injury Investigation Period; and (ii) that the Court of First Instance's endorsement of the findings in the Contested Regulation relating to stock levels of the Community CD-R industry constituted a factor supporting a finding of injury in the Contested Regulation.
   The third ground of appeal relates to the Court of First Instance's failure to take proper account of the terms of Article 8(7) of the Community's Basic Anti-Subsidy Regulation and its failure to take into account the impact of factors unrelated to imports of CD-Rs from India when examining the causal link between Indian imports and the alleged injury to the Community CD-R industry.

      (1)  JO L 138, p. 1.


title: Case C-668/15: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Denmark) — Jyske Finans A/S v Ligebehandlingsnævnet, acting on behalf of Ismar Huskic (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin — Directive 2000/43/EC — Article 2(2)(a) and (b) — Credit institution requiring persons applying for a loan to purchase a car who have produced a driving licence indicating a country of birth other than a Member State of the European Union or of the European Free Trade Association as a form of identification to provide additional proof of identity in the form of a copy of a passport or residence permit)

text:
               29.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 168/14

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Denmark) — Jyske Finans A/S v Ligebehandlingsnævnet, acting on behalf of Ismar Huskic
   (Case C-668/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin - Directive 2000/43/EC - Article 2(2)(a) and (b) - Credit institution requiring persons applying for a loan to purchase a car who have produced a driving licence indicating a country of birth other than a Member State of the European Union or of the European Free Trade Association as a form of identification to provide additional proof of identity in the form of a copy of a passport or residence permit))
   (2017/C 168/17)
   Language of the case: Danish

      Referring court

   Vestre Landsret

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Jyske Finans A/S

      Defendant: Ligebehandlingsnævnet, acting on behalf of Ismar Huskic

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 2(2)(a) and (b) of Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin is to be interpreted as not precluding the practice of a credit institution which requires a customer whose driving licence indicates a country of birth other than a Member State of the European Union or of the European Free Trade Association to produce additional identification in the form of a copy of the customer’s passport or residence permit.

      (1)  OJ C 68, 22.2.2016.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 July 2005 in Case T-294/04 Internationaler Hilfsfonds eV v Commission of the European Communities (Non-contractual liability — Reimbursement of costs relating to procedures before the European Ombudsman — Action manifestly unfounded)

text:
               17.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 229/23

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 11 July 2005
   in Case T-294/04 Internationaler Hilfsfonds eV v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Non-contractual liability - Reimbursement of costs relating to procedures before the European Ombudsman - Action manifestly unfounded)
   (2005/C 229/51)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case T-294/04: Internationaler Hilfsfonds eV, established in Rosbach (Germany), represented by H. Kaltenecker, lawyer, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: M.-J. Jonczy and S. Fries, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for compensation for the damage allegedly suffered in the form of lawyer's fees incurred in three procedures before the European Ombudsman — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of M. Jaeger, President, J. Azizi and E. Cremona, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 11 July 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly unfounded in law;

               2.

               The applicant shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 262 of 23.10.2004.


title: Case C-273/05 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 April 2007 — Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) v Celltech R&D Ltd (Appeal — Community trade mark — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Application for word mark CELLTECH — Absolute grounds for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Descriptive character)

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/9

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 April 2007 — Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) v Celltech R&D Ltd
   (Case C-273/05 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Application for word mark CELLTECH - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Descriptive character)
   (2007/C 96/13)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Appellant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings: Celltech R&D Ltd (represented by: D. Alexander QC and G. Hobbs QC, instructed by N. Jenkins, Solicitor)
   Re:
   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 14 April 2005 in Case T-260/03 Celltech R&D Limited v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) in which the Court of First Instance annulled decision R 659/2002-2 of OHIM's Second Board of Appeal of 19 May 2003, rejecting the appeal against the examiner's decision refusing registration of the word mark ‘CELLTECH ’for goods and services falling within Classes 5, 10 and 42
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 243, 1.10.2005.


title: Case C-39/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 25 January 2017 — Lubrizol France SAS v Caisse nationale du Régime social des indépendants (RSI) participations extérieures

text:
               10.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/22

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 25 January 2017 — Lubrizol France SAS v Caisse nationale du Régime social des indépendants (RSI) participations extérieures
   (Case C-39/17)
   (2017/C 112/31)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de cassation

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Lubrizol France SAS

      Defendant: Caisse nationale du Régime social des indépendants (RSI) participations extérieures

      Question referred

   Is it contrary to Articles 28 and 30 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union for the value of goods transferred from France to another Member State of the European Union by or on behalf of an entity subject to the social solidarity contribution payable by companies and to the contribution additional to the latter or on that account, for the purposes of its business, to be taken into account for determining the overall turnover that constitutes the basis of assessment to those contributions?


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of  10 January 2006  in Case C-94/03: Commission of the European Communities v Council of the European Union (Action for annulment — Council Decision 2003/106/EC concerning the approval of the Rotterdam Convention — Prior Informed Consent Procedure — Hazardous chemicals and pesticides in international trade — Choice of legal basis — Articles 133 EC and 175 EC)

text:
               25.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/2

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 10 January 2006
   in Case C-94/03: Commission of the European Communities v Council of the European Union (1)

   (Action for annulment - Council Decision 2003/106/EC concerning the approval of the Rotterdam Convention - Prior Informed Consent Procedure - Hazardous chemicals and pesticides in international trade - Choice of legal basis - Articles 133 EC and 175 EC)
   (2006/C 48/03)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case C-94/03, Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G. zur Hausen, L. Ström van Lier and E. Righini) v Council of the European Union (Agents: B. Hoff-Nielsen, M. Sims-Robertson, and K. Michoel), supported by French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues, F. Alabrune and E. Puisais), Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agents: H.G. Sevenster, S. Terstal and N.A.J. Bel), Republic of Austria (Agent: E. Riedl), Republic of Finland (Agent: T. Pynnä), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent: R. Caudwell, and A. Dashwood, Barrister) European Parliament (Agents: C. Pennera, M. Moore, and K. Bradley) — Action for annulment under Article 230 EC, brought on 28 February 2003 — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, J. Makarczyk, C. Gulmann, P. Kūris and J. Klučka, Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 10 January 2006, in which it:

               1.

               Annuls Council Decision 2003/106/EC of 19 December 2002 concerning the approval, on behalf of the European Community, of the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for certain hazardous chemicals and pesticides in international trade;

               2.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities and the Council of the European Union to bear their own costs;

               3.

               Orders the French Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the European Parliament to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 101 of 26.04.2003.


title: Case T-334/03: Action brought on 29 September 2003 by Deutsche Post EURO EXPRESS GmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
C 289/32               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                        29.11.2003
The applicant claims, first, that the successful tenderer received         Pleas in law and main arguments
favourable financial treatment, to the detriment of the other
tenderers. The applicant also alleges that the successful tenderer
had privileged access to essential information. The applicant
alleges in particular that the other tenderers did not have                According to the applicant, its claim arises out of two TACIS
access to certain essential technical information on the current           contracts between the Commission and a contractor regarding
status of the database for the CORDIS project.                             two projects in Moldova and Russia. The contractor subcon-
                                                                           tracted with the applicant to provide some of the services.
                                                                           When the applicant discovered what it considered to be
                                                                           irregularities on the part of the contractor, it informed the
The applicant also submits that the criteria used in the award
of the tender do not conform to those laid down in the                     Commission Services. On the understanding that it would be
                                                                           paid for the services rendered, the applicant carried out the
contract documents and that the Commission applied in a
                                                                           services necessary for completion of the projects covered
discriminatory manner the criteria published in the contract
                                                                           by the contracts. Subsequently, the Commission ceased all
documents for the selection of the tender giving the best
quality/price ratio.                                                       payments to the contractor and issued recovery orders for
                                                                           amounts already paid to the contractor.
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Commission’s failure to pay the
                                                                           sum of EUR 448 947,78 is wrongful and has caused the
                                                                           applicant additional loss. The applicant argues that the Com-
                                                                           mission has had the benefit of the services provided by the
                                                                           applicant but has not paid anyone for such services. The
Action brought on 30 September 2003 by Masdar (U.K.)                       applicant claims that the Commission is obliged to pay the
  Ltd against Commission of the European Communities                       applicant for the services provided on the basis of the principles
                                                                           of unjust enrichment, gestion d’affaires, legitimate expectation
                                                                           and general principles of fault liability. In addition, the
                         (Case T-333/03)                                   applicant claims interest and damages for loss consequential
                                                                           upon the Commission’s alleged illegal failure to pay the
                                                                           applicant for the services.
                        (2003/C 289/66)
                   (Language of the case: English)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 30 September 2003 by Masdar
(U.K.) Ltd, Eversley, Hampshire, (United Kingdom), represented             Action brought on 29 September 2003 by Deutsche Post
by Philip Bentley QC and Patrick Green, Barrister.                         EURO EXPRESS GmbH against the Office for Harmonis-
                                                                             ation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Case T-334/03)
—    order the Commission to pay to the applicant:
                                                                                (2003/C 289/67)
     i)     the sum of EUR 448 947,78
     ii)    interest on the said sum as at 31 July 2003 in the                               (Language of the case: German)
            amount of £ 98 121,24 plus interest from 1 August
            2003 until the date of judgment
     iii)   compensation for material damage, loss of profits
            and non-material damage in an amount of
                                                                           An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
            £ 1 532 931,09;                                                Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
                                                                           Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
—    order the Commission to pay the costs of the present                  29 September 2003 by Deutsche Post EURO EXPRESS GmbH,
     proceedings.                                                          represented by Gabriele Lindhofer.
 ---pagebreak--- 29.11.2003               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 289/33
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                 Sadam S.p.A. and Others, represented by Gualtiero Pittalis,
                                                                            Ivano Vigliotti, Gian Michele Roberti, Paolo Ziotti and Alessan-
—     annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the               dra Franchi, against the Commission of the European Com-
      Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade                munities.
      Marks and Designs) of 20 June 2003 (Case R 348/2002-
      4) in so far as if concluded that trade mark No 1 575 521
      does not satisfy the requirements of Article 7(1)(b) and              The applicants claim that the Court should:
      (c) of Regulation No 40/94;
                                                                            —     annul Article 1(c) of Commission Regulation (EC) No
—     order publication of Community trade mark                                   1158/2003 of 30 June 2003 fixing the derived inter-
      no 1 575 521 under Article 40 of Regulation No 40/94;                       vention price for white sugar for the 2003/04 marketing
                                                                                year for all areas in Italy;
—     in the alternative, refer the case back to the Board of
      Appeal for determination;
                                                                            —     in the alternative, declare under Article 241 EC that
                                                                                Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                                       19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the
                                                                                markets in the sugar sector is unlawful and inapplicable;
Pleas in law and main arguments                                             —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
Community trade mark            Word mark ‘EUROPREMIUM’ —
sought:                         application no 1 575 521
                                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
Goods or services:              Goods and services in Classes 16,
                                20, 35 and 39 (including paper,
                                goods made of wood, advertising             By the present action, the applicant companies challenge
                                and transport and storage)                  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1158/2003 of 30 June 2003
                                                                            fixing the derived intervention prices for white sugar for the
Decision appealed to the        Refusal by the examiner to register         2003/04 marketing year (‘the contested regulation’) (1). In
Board of Appeal:                                                            support of their action the applicants raise the pleas in law set
                                                                            out below.
Decision of the Board of        Dismissal of the appeal
Appeal:
                                                                            First, the applicants submit that, in several respects, the
Pleas in law:                   —    the trade mark is sufficiently         contested regulation is in conflict with the basic regulation
                                     distinctive                            adopted by the Council in the form of Regulation (EC)
                                                                            No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 (2).
                                —    there is no need to preserve
                                     the availability of the mark
                                     as it is not descriptive               In particular, the applicants complain that the contested
                                                                            regulation erroneously classifies Italy as a ‘deficit area’ for the
                                                                            supply of sugar, thereby applying the system of derived prices
                                                                            (known as ‘Regionalisation’) to Italy. That classification, based,
                                                                            in the applicants’ view, on an incorrect analysis of the
                                                                            economic situation, prejudices them in so far as the introduc-
                                                                            tion of derived prices results in an increase in the production
                                                                            costs for sugar undertakings operating in Italy. In particular,
Action brought on 25 September 2003 by Eridania Sadam                       according to the applicants, when assessing Italian domestic
S.p.A. and Others against the Commission of the European                    supply, the Commission failed to take account of the quantities
                            Communities                                     of white sugar imported free of duty from the Balkan countries.
                                                                            Those imports significantly alter the conditions in which the
                          (Case T-338/03)                                   common organisation of the market functions bringing about
                                                                            significant imbalances which appear more serious following
                                                                            the application of regionalisation to the Italian market.
                          (2003/C 289/68)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                         The applicants therefore consider that Article 1(c) of the
                                                                            contested regulation is both flawed in terms of its assumptions
                                                                            and potentially contrary in its effects to the Community
                                                                            principles on which the common agricultural policy is based,
An action was brought before the Court of First Instance of                 the WTO rules relating to sugar and the principles of
the European Communities on 25 September 2003 by Eridania                   proportionality and non-discrimination.


title: Case T-909/16: Action brought on 29 December 2016 — Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — Sharma (NRIM Life Sciences)

text:
               20.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 53/43

         Action brought on 29 December 2016 — Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — Sharma (NRIM Life Sciences)
   (Case T-909/16)
   (2017/C 053/52)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Laboratorios Ern, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: S. Correa Rodríguez, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Anil K. Sharma (Hillingdon, United Kingdom)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘NRIM life Sciences’ — Application for registration No 13 031 455

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 September 2016 in Case R 2376/2015-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               revoke the contested decision and reject the EUTM No. 013031455 NRIM LIFE SCIENCES for all goods in class 5;

               —

               impose the costs to EUIPO and, in case ANIL K SHARMA decides to intervene in the present proceedings, to ANIL K. Sharma.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case C-35/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura Circondariale di Pinerolo (TO) by order of 13 January 1999 in the criminal proceedings against Manuele Arduino, with the intervention of Diego Dessi, plaintiff in the civil action, and the parties with civil liability, Giovanni Bertolotto and Compagnia Assicuratrice RAS SpA, having its registered office in Milan

text:
C 100/10               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     10.4.1999
3. Is the anwer to question 1 above affected by the fact              liability, Giovanni Bertolotto and Compagnia Assicuratrice
     that:                                                            RAS SpA, having its registered office in Milan, on the
                                                                      following questions:
     (a) the supply of goods to the customer is described as
         being on interest free' credit terms;                       (a) Does the decision of the CNF (1), approved by
                                                                           Ministerial Decree No 585/94, fixing binding tariffs
     (b) the customer signs a loan agreement with a                        for the professional activity of lawyers, come within
         finance house at the time of the sale transaction,                the scope of the prohibition in Article 85(1) of the EC
         the terms of which include:                                       Treaty?
         (i)   a promise by the finance house to pay the                   If the answer to (a) is in the affirmative:
               retailer a sum equal to the loan (which was
               for amount equal to the advertised price of
               the goods);                                            (b) Does the case none the less correspond to one of the
                                                                           situations envisaged in Article 85(3) of the Treaty to
         (ii) a statement that the interest rate applying to               which that prohibition does not apply?
               the loan is 0 %'; and
                                                                      (1) Consiglio Nazionale Forense (National Legal Council).
         (iii) an authorisation by the customer to the
               finance house for it to pay the full amount of
               the loan to the retailer and an agreement by
               the finance house to do so; and
     (c) as a result of a separate agreement between the
         retailer and the finance house (the existence and
         terms of which are not disclosed to the customer),           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de
         the sum received by the retailer is a sum less than          PremieÁre Instance, LieÁge (Seventh Chamber), by judgment
         the full amount of the advertised price for the              of that court of 8 February 1999 in the case of IdeÂal
         goods?                                                                   Tourisme SA against the Belgian State
                                                                                (Case C-36/99)
(1) Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the                                        (1999/C 100/17)
    harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to
    turnover taxes Ð Common system of value added tax:
    uniform basis of assessment (OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1).
                                                                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                      European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal de
                                                                      PremieÁre Instance (Court of First Instance), LieÁge (Seventh
                                                                      Chamber) of 8 February 1999, received at the Court
                                                                      Registry on 10 February 1999, for a preliminary ruling in
                                                                      the case of IdeÂal Tourisme against the Belgian State on the
                                                                      following questions:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura
Circondariale di Pinerolo (TO) by order of 13 January                 Does Council Directive 77/388/EEC (1), and in particular
1999 in the criminal proceedings against Manuele                      Article 12(3) and Article 28(3)(b) thereof, permit Member
Arduino, with the intervention of Diego Dessi, plaintiff in           States to introduce, to the detriment of motor-coach
the civil action, and the parties with civil liability,               passenger transport undertakings, discrimination whixh is
Giovanni Bertolotto and Compagnia Assicuratrice RAS                   counter to the principles of equal treatment and non-
           SpA, having its registered office in Milan                 discrimination contained in Community law?
                         (Case C-35/99)
                                                                      Can a VAT regime which favours a given sector of
                        (1999/C 100/16)                               economic activity, such as the one in issue in the present
                                                                      case, constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 92
                                                                      of the Treaty of Rome, even where it does not exclusively
                                                                      protect the interests of national industry?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 13 January 1999 from
the Pretura Circondariale di Pinerolo (TO) (District                  (1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
Magistrate's Court, Pinerolo (Turin)), which was received                 harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to
                                                                          turnover taxes Ð Common system of value added tax:
at the Court Registry on 9 February 1999, for a
                                                                          uniform basis of assessment (OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1).
preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings against
Manuele Arduino, with the intervention of Diego Dessi,
plaintiff in the civil action, and the parties with civil


title: Case C-124/02: Action brought on 5 April 2002 by European Parliament against AIG Europe (AIG)

text:
15.6.2002              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 144/19
2.    order RSA to pay damages amounting to                               Action brought on 5 April 2002 by European Parliament
      EUR 40 781 286 for 2001 and to EUR 9 409 701 for                                       against AIG Europe (AIG)
      2002 to offset the expenditure incurred by the Parliament
      in respect of additional insurance cover to replace the
      guarantees wrongfully terminated by the defendant and                                       (Case C-124/02)
      all other connected expenditure, together with interest
      calculated at the legal rate of interest, it being understood                               (2002/C 144/31)
      that all accidents occurring during 2002 will be declared
      to RSA on the basis of the policies wrongfully terminated;
                                                                          An action against AIG Europe (AIG) was brought before the
3.    order the defendant to pay the costs.                               Court of Justice of the European Communities on 5 April 2002
                                                                          by the European Parliament, represented by D. Petersheim,
                                                                          O. Caisou-Rousseau and M. Ecker, acting as Agents, with an
                                                                          address for service in Luxembourg.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          1.    declare null and void the terminations of guarantee
This action has been brought before the Court on the basis of                   notified by AIG on 8 October and 5 November 2001;
an arbitration clause in an insurance contract covering build-
ings and contents of the European Parliament located in                   2.    order AIG to pay damages amounting to EUR 181 852,93
Luxembourg, Strasbourg, Brussels and in a number of other                       for 2001 and to EUR 44 556,84 for 2002 to offset the
towns and cities (where the European Parliament has infor-                      expenditure incurred by the Parliament in respect of
mation offices).                                                                additional insurance cover to replace the guarantees
                                                                                wrongfully terminated by the defendant and all other
                                                                                connected expenditure, together with interest calculated
                                                                                at the legal rate of interest, it being understood that all
The parties are in dispute over the validity of the termination                 accidents occurring during 2002 will be declared to AIG
concerning, on the one hand, ‘labour dispute/terrorist acts’ risk               on the basis of the policies wrongfully terminated;
cover and, on the other, the remaining guarantees (fire and
connected risks).                                                         3.    order the defendant to pay the costs.
The European Parliament takes the view that the special                   Pleas in law and main arguments
conditions of the contract replace the general conditions relied
on by the defendant. Moreover, for buildings in France,
Article 42 of the general conditions cannot justify termination           The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put
with notice of less than the 6 months provided for in the                 forward in Case C-123/02.
standard guarantees. Since French legislation makes cover for
standard risks undetachable from the risk of ‘labour dispute/
terrorist attacks’, that article cannot justify termination with
notice of less than 6 months for property in France. Likewise,
since there is no provision for notice of 7 days under
Luxembourg law, which strictly forbids terminations which it
does not expressly provide for, such notice is unlawful with
respect to buildings in Luxembourg. In so far as the defendants
invoke the general conditions to claim that the risk has become           Action brought on 5 April 2002 by European Parliament
more serious for reasons outwith the control of the insured                              against HDI International (HDI)
party, the relevant terminations are tardy, since they disregard
the period of one month following notice of the event giving                                      (Case C-125/02)
rise to the aggravated circumstances.
                                                                                (2002/C 144/32)
Contractual liability for failure to perform the insurance
contract is based on the law of the Member States where the
insured property is located.                                              An action against HDI International (HDI) was brought before
                                                                          the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 5 April
                                                                          2002 by the European Parliament, represented by D. Peters-
                                                                          heim, O. Caisou-Rousseau and M. Ecker, acting as Agents, with
                                                                          an address for service in Luxembourg.