C 352/38              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                  4.12.1999
       Removal from the register of Case T-392/93 (1)                          Removal from the register of Case T-203/94 (1)
                       (1999/C 352/66)                                                         (1999/C 352/69)
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
By order of 27 September 1999 the President of the Fourth
Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance           By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Fourth
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from                Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance
the register of Case T-392/93: Greg Walsh v Council of the              of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
European Union and Commission of the European Communi-                  the register of Case T-203/94: Hans-Hermann Blohm and
ties.                                                                   Others v Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 197 of 21.7.1993.
                                                                        (1) OJ C 218 of 68.1994.
Partial removal from the register in Joined Cases T-81/94
                         and Others (1)
                       (1999/C 352/67)                                         Removal from the register of Case T-225/94 (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 352/70)
                  (Language of the case: German)
By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Fourth
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities has ordered the removal of
Cases T-81/94, T-114/94, T-135/94, T-200/94, T-204/94,                  By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Fourth
T-205/94, T-206/94, T-207/94, T-208/94, T-209/94,                       Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance
T-210/94, T-211/94, T-213/94, T-214/94, T-215/94,                       of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
T-216/94, T-217/94, T-218/94, T-220/94, T-221/94,                       the register of Case T-225/94: Georg Hofstetter v Commission
T-222/94, T-223/94, T-254/94, T-255/94, T-256/94,                       of the European Communities.
T-257/94, T-258/94, T-269/94, T-287/94, T-288/94 and
T-296/94 from the list of Joined Cases T-81/94 and Others:
Anni Rau and Others v Council of the European Union and                 (1) OJ C 233 of 20.8.1994.
Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 103 of 11.4.1994, C 132 of 14.5.1994, C 218 of 6.8.1994,
    C 275 of 1.10.1994 and C 370 of 24.12.1994.
                                                                               Removal from the register of Case T-270/94 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case T-89/94 (1)                                           (1999/C 352/71)
                       (1999/C 352/68)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                        By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Fourth
By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Fourth               Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance
Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance           of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from                the register of Case T-270/94: Claus-Heinrich Röhe v Council
the register of Case T-89/94: Hubert Remmers v Council                  of the European Union and Commission of the European
of the European Union and Commission of the European                    Communities.
Communities.
                                                                        (1) OJ C 275 of 1.10.1994.
(1) OJ C 103 of 11.4.1994.


title: Case T-384/06: Action brought on 13 December 2006 — IBP and International Building Products France v Commission

text:
               27.1.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 20/32

         Action brought on 13 December 2006 — IBP and International Building Products France v Commission
   (Case T-384/06)
   (2007/C 20/49)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicants: IBP Ltd (Tipton, United Kingdom) and International Building Products France SA (Sartrouville, France) (represented by: M. Clough, QC, and A. Aldred, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision insofar as it relates to the applicants in respect of the period from 23 November 2001 to 1 April 2004;

               —

               in any event, cancel the fine imposed on the applicants or reduce such fine by the amount considered appropriate by the Court in all the circumstances;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicants' costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants seek the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 4180 final of 20 September 2006 in Case COMP/F-1/38.121 — Fittings, by which the Commission found that the applicants, together with other undertakings, had infringed Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area by fixing prices, agreeing on price lists, agreeing on discounts and rebates, agreeing on implementation mechanisms for introducing price increases, allocating national markets, allocating customers and exchanging other commercial information.
   In support of their application, the applicants submit that the Commission infringed Article 81 EC by concluding that the applicants were party to a single, complex and continuous infringement in breach of Article 81 EC during the period from 23 November 2001 to 1 April 2004, when the evidence before it does not, according to the applicants, support that finding.
   Furthermore, the applicants allege that the Commission, contrary to Article 253 EC, has not provided reasons, or has provided insufficient reasons, for its findings.
   Moreover, the applicants claim that the Commission has infringed their right to be heard by finding infringements without previously stating the case against the applicants in any statement of objections or allowing the applicants to comment prior to the adoption of the contested decision.
   As for the cancellation or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants, they submit that:

               a)

               the Commission failed to apply Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 (1), Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003 (2) and Article 5(a) of the 1998 Guidelines on the method of setting fines (3);

               b)

               the Commission has fined International Building Products France the sum of EUR 5.63 million twice for the same conduct;

               c)

               the Commission has misapplied the 1998 Guidelines on the method of setting fines; and

               d)

               the Commission has misapplied the 1996 Leniency Notice (4).

      (1)  Council Regulation No 17 of 6 February 1962, First Regulation implementing Articles [81] and [82] of the Treaty (OJ, English Special Edition 1959-1962, p. 87).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).

      (3)  Commission Notice of 14 January 1998 entitled ‘Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 and Article 65(5) of the ECSC Treaty’ (OJ 1998 C 9, p. 3).

      (4)  Commission Notice on the non-imposition or reduction of fines in cartel cases (OJ 1996 C 207, p. 4).


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 March 1999 in Case T-147/94: Krupp Hoesch Stahl AG v. Commission of the European Communities (ECSC Treaty - Competition - Agreements between undertakings - Price-fixing - System for the exchange of information)

text:
5.6.1999                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 160/15
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                         of 11 March 1999                                                            of 11 March 1999
                                                                            in Case T-148/94: Preussag Stahl AG v. Commission of
in Case T-147/94: Krupp Hoesch Stahl AG v. Commission                                         the European Communities (1)
               of the European Communities (1)
                                                                           (ECSC Treaty — Competition — Agreements between
(ECSC Treaty — Competition — Agreements between                            undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and
undertakings — Price-fixing — System for the exchange of                   concerted practices — Price-fixing — Market sharing —
                             information)                                               Systems for the exchange of information)
                           (1999/C 160/29)                                                             (1999/C 160/30)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                           In case T-148/94: Preussag Stahl AG, established in Salzgitter
In case T-147/94: Krupp Hoesch Stahl AG, established in                    (Germany), represented by Horst Satzky and Bernhard
Dortmund (Germany), represented, by Otfried Lieberknecht                   M. Maassen, of the Brussels Bar, Martin Heidenhain, Rechtsan-
and, during the oral procedure, by Martin Klusmann, Rechtsan-              walt, Frankfurt, and Constantin Frick, Rechtsanwalt, Bremen,
wälte, Dusseldorf, with an address for service in Luxembourg               with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
at the Chambers of Alex Bonn, 62, avenue Guillaume, v.                     René Faltz, 6, rue Heine, v. Commission of the European
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: initially                  Communities (Agents: initially Julian Currall, Norbert Lorenz
Julian Currall, Norbert Lorenz and Géraud Sajust de Bergues,               and Géraud Sajust de Bergues, and subsequently Jean-Louis
and subsequently Jean-Louis Dewost, Julian Currall and Guy                 Dewost, Julian Currall and Guy Charrier, assisted by Heinz-
Charrier, assisted by Heinz-Joachim Freund) — application,                 Joachim Freund) — application, principally, for the annulment
principally, for the annulment of Commission Decision                      of Commission Decision 94/215/ECSC of 16 February 1994
94/215/ECSC of 16 February 1994 relating to a proceeding                   relating to a proceeding pursuant to article 65 of the ECSC
pursuant to article 65 of the ECSC Treaty concerning agree-                Treaty concerning agreements and concerted practices engaged
ments and concerted practices engaged in by European                       in by European producers of beams (OJ L 116, 6.5.1994, p. 1)
producers of beams (OJ L 116, 6.5.1994, p. 1) — the Court                  — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended
of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition),                  Composition), composed of: C. W. Bellamy, acting as President,
composed of: C. W. Bellamy, acting as President, A. Potocki                A. Potocki and J. Pirrung, Judges; J. Palacio González, Adminis-
and J. Pirrung, Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for           trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 March
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 March 1999, in                   1999, in which it:
which it:
                                                                           1. annuls article 1 of Commission Decision 94/215/ECSC of
1. fixes at EUR 9 000 the amount of the fine imposed on the                     16 February 1994 relating to a proceeding pursuant to article
     applicant by article 4 of Commission Decision 94/215/ECSC of               65 of the ECSC Treaty concerning agreements and concerted
     16 February 1994 relating to a proceeding pursuant to article 65           practices engaged in by European producers of beams in so far as
     of the ECSC Treaty concerning agreements and concerted practices           it finds that the applicant participated in a price-fixing agreement
     engaged in by European producers of beams,                                 on the German market which lasted three months,
                                                                           2. fixes the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by article 4
2. dismisses the remainder of the action,                                       of Decision 94/215/ECSC at EUR 8 600 000,
                                                                           3. dismisses the remainder of the action,
3. orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay half of the
     defendant’s costs. The defendant shall bear half of its own costs.
                                                                           4. orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay four fifths
                                                                                of the defendant’s costs. The defendant shall bear one fifth of its
                                                                                own costs.
(1) OJ C 174, 25.6.1994.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 161, 11.6.1994.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 29 April 2004 in Case C-387/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Harald Weigel and Ingrid Weigel v Finanzlandesdirektion für Vorarlberg (Free movement of workers — Importation of a car — Duty payable on standard consumption (‘Normverbrauchsabgabe’) — Customs duties and duties having equivalent effect — Discriminatory taxation — Sixth VAT Directive — Turnover tax)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/13

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Sixth Chamber)
   of 29 April 2004
   in Case C-387/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Harald Weigel and Ingrid Weigel v Finanzlandesdirektion für Vorarlberg (1)

   (Free movement of workers - Importation of a car - Duty payable on standard consumption (‘Normverbrauchsabgabe’) - Customs duties and duties having equivalent effect - Discriminatory taxation - Sixth VAT Directive - Turnover tax)
   (2004/C 118/24)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-387/01: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Federal Administrative Court) (Austria) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Harald Weigel and Ingrid Weigel, on the one hand, and Finanzlandesdirektion für Vorarlberg, on the other, concerning the interpretation of Articles 12 EC, 23 EC, 25 EC, 39 EC and 90 EC, and of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes - Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1), as amended by Council Directive 91/680/EEC of 16 December 1991 supplementing the common system of value added tax and amending Directive 77/388/EEC with a view to the abolition of fiscal frontiers (OJ 1991 L 376, p. 1) – the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris, acting as President of the Sixth Chamber, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen and N. Colneric (Rapporteur), Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has delivered a judgment on 29 April 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

               (1)

               Articles 39 EC and 12 EC do not preclude a case in which an individual who, moving from one Member State, becomes established in another Member State by reason of a change in his place of work and, on that occasion, imports his car into the latter State is made liable to a duty on consumption such as the basic ‘Normverbrauchsabgabe’ in issue in the main proceedings.

               (2)

               A duty on consumption such as the basic ‘Normverbrauchsabgabe’ in issue in the main proceedings constitutes internal taxation, the compatibility of which with Community law must be examined in the light of Article 90 EC and not in that of Articles 23 EC and 25 EC.

               (3)

               Article 90 EC must be construed as not precluding a duty on consumption such as the basic ‘Normverbrauchsabgabe’ in issue in the main proceedings in so far as the amounts of that duty accurately reflect the depreciation in real terms in the value of second-hand motor vehicles imported by an individual and permit attainment of the objective of taxation of such vehicles which is in no case greater than the amount of the residual duty included in the value of similar second-hand vehicles already registered within the national territory.

               (4)

               Article 90 EC must be construed as precluding the levying, in the event of importation by an individual of a second-hand car from another Member State, of a 20 % surcharge on a duty having the characteristics of the basic ‘Normverbrauchsabgabe’ in issue in the main proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 369 of 22.12.2001.


title: Case T-240/15: Judgment of the General Court of 1 June 2016 — Grupo Bimbo v EUIPO (Form of a bar with four circles) (European Union trade mark — Application for three-dimensional European Union trade mark — Form of a bar with four circles — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Rights of the defence — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               11.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 251/28

         Judgment of the General Court of 1 June 2016 — Grupo Bimbo v EUIPO (Form of a bar with four circles)
   (Case T-240/15) (1)

   ((European Union trade mark - Application for three-dimensional European Union trade mark - Form of a bar with four circles - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Rights of the defence - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons))
   (2016/C 251/31)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Grupo Bimbo, SAB de CV (Mexico City, Mexico) (represented by: N. Fernández Fernández Pacheco, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Muñiz Rodríguez and A. Schifko, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 March 2015 (Case R 1602/2014 1) concerning an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the form of a bar with four circles as a European Union trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Grupo Bimbo, SAB de CV to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 236, 20.7.2015.


title: Case C-219/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 9 May 2012 — Finanzamt Freistadt Rohrbach Urfahr v Unabhängiger Fianzsenat Außenstelle Linz

text:
               11.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/3

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 9 May 2012 — Finanzamt Freistadt Rohrbach Urfahr v Unabhängiger Fianzsenat Außenstelle Linz
   (Case C-219/12)
   2012/C 243/05
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Finanzamt Freistadt Rohrbach Urfahr

      Defendant: Unabhängiger Fianzsenat Außenstelle Linz

      Interested party: Thomas Fuchs

      Question referred

   Is the operation of a network-connected photovoltaic installation with no independent power storage capability on or adjacent to a privately owned house used for private residential purposes, which is technically designed such that the power generated by the installation is, on a continuing basis, below the total quantity of power privately consumed by the installation operator in the privately owned house, an ‘economic activity’ of the installation operator within the meaning of Article 4 of the Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC? (1)

      (1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.


title: Case C-612/14: Order of the President of the Court of 27 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien — Austria) — Stephan Naumann v Austrian Airlines AG

text:
               29.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/22

         Order of the President of the Court of 27 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien — Austria) — Stephan Naumann v Austrian Airlines AG
   (Case C-612/14) (1)

   (2015/C 213/41)
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 89, 16.3.2015.


title: Case T-157/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 3 March 2009 — People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran v Council

text:
               18.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 90/38

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 3 March 2009 — People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran v Council
   (Case T-157/07) (1)

   2009/C 90/59

      Language of the case: English

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

      (1)  OJ C 140, 23.6.2007.


title: Case C-47/03 P: Appeal brought on 7 February 2003 by Mr Cwik against the judgment delivered on 26 November 2002 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-103/01 between Mr Cwik and Commission of the European Communities

text:
5.4.2003              EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                                C 83/9
     forcibly to arrest and deport any person whom they                 6.     Are the Community rules set out above — Articles 7, 8
     unilaterally consider not to be entitled to remain within                 and 9 of Council Directive 64/221/EEC of 25 February
     that State, and to do so within such a period of time and                 1964 and Articles 2, 5, 6, 13 and 14 of the Convention
     in such a way that their action escape any practical and                  for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
     effective review by any third-party impartial authority                   Freedoms, signed at Rome on 4 November 1950 — and
     whether before, during or after their actions?                            the general, fundamental principles of Community law to
                                                                               be interpreted as meaning that Articles 13(3), (4) and (5)a
                                                                               of Legislative Decree No 286 of 25 July 1998, as amended
                                                                               are inconsistent with them?
3.   Are the Community rules set out above — Articles 7, 8              (1 ) Council Directive 64/221/EEC of 25 February 1964 on the co-
     and 9 of Council Directive 64/221/EEC of 25 February                    ordination of special measures concerning the movement and
     1964 and Articles 2, 5, 6, 13 and 14 of the Convention                  residence of foreign nationals which are justified on grounds of
     for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental                      public policy, public security or public health (OJ P 56 of
     Freedoms, signed at Rome on 4 November 1950 — and                       4.4.1964, p. 850).
     the general, fundamental principles of Community law to
     be interpreted as meaning that it is illogical and unlawful
     for a Member State of the European Community to lay
     down a system for the judicial review of orders for the
     deportation of foreigners and of police action taken to
     execute such orders which, essentially, has no effect on
     the consequences which flow from such orders or on the
     actions taken to execute them, and is thus nothing more            Appeal brought on 7 February 2003 by Mr Cwik against
     than a semblance of legal protection, wholly deprived of           the judgment delivered on 26 November 2002 by the
     any practical effect or usefulness?                                Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities in Case T-103/01 between Mr
                                                                            Cwik and Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case C-47/03 P)
4.   Are the Community rules set out above — Articles 7, 8
     and 9 of Council Directive 64/221/EEC of 25 February                                          (2003/C 83/15)
     1964 and Articles 2, 5, 6, 13 and 14 of the Convention
     for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
     Freedoms, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 — and
     the general, fundamental principles of Community law to            An appeal against the judgment delivered on 26 November
     be interpreted as meaning that it is unlawful for a Member         2002 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance
     State of the European Community to lay down provisions             of the European Communities in Case T-103/01 Cwik v
     governing orders for the deportation of foreigners and             Commission was brought before the Court of Justice of the
     the execution of such orders in such a way as to preclude          European Communities on 7 February 2003 by Mr Cwik,
     the person deported from actually exercising any right of          represented by N. Lhoëst, lawyer, with an address for service
     asylum?                                                            in Luxembourg.
                                                                        The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        1.     declare the appeal admissible and well founded;
5.   Are the Community rules set out above — Articles 7, 8
     and 9 of Council Directive 64/221/EEC of 25 February
     1964 and Articles 2, 5, 6, 13 and 14 of the Convention             2.     accordingly:
     for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
     Freedoms, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 — and                         (a)   set aside the contested judgment;
     the general, fundamental principles of Community law to
     be interpreted as meaning that it is unlawful, in the sense               (b) refer the case back to the Court of First Instance so
     that it disproportionately and unfairly denies and limits                       that it may rule, first, on the application seeking the
     the right to personal liberty accorded to all persons in                        annulment of the decision of the Commission of
     the European Community, for a Member State of the                               13 June 2000 transferring the applicant from the
     Community to provide that orders for the deportation of                         ‘Economic Information, Publications and Docu-
     foreigners in possession of a valid passport be forcibly                        mentation’ Unit, which, following restructuring,
     executed immediately (in the sense of within a few                              subsequently became the ‘Information: EURO, EMU’
     minutes) following their notification to the foreigner                          Unit (CFIN-04 under the direction of Mr Blackie), to
     concerned, even in the absence of genuine and specific                          the ‘General Coordination, Human Resources and
     reasons of public security or public order justifying                           Administration’ Unit, (ECFIN-01 under the direction
     recourse to such physical coercion?                                             of Mr Verhaeven), and (ii) on the claim for damages;
 ---pagebreak--- C 83/10                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          5.4.2003
      (c)   order the defendant to pay the entire costs of both                 economic, asset or financial position which they are
            proceedings.                                                        required to provide and which concern the company
                                                                                itself or the group of companies to which it belongs?
Pleas and main arguments
                                                                          2.    With reference to the obligation upon each Member State
                                                                                to adopt ‘appropriate penalties’ for the infringements
Infringement of Community law, in particular infringement of                    provided for in the First Directive 68/151/EEC and the
Article 33 of the statute of the Court of Justice of the European               Fourth Directive 78/660/EEC ( 2), must those directives
Communities under which judgments are to state the reasons                      and, in particular, the combined provisions of Article
on which they are based, which means among other things                         44(2)(g) of the Treaty Establishing the European Com-
that the grounds relied on should be legally valid, that is to say              munity, Article 2(1)(f) and Article 6 of the First Directive
coherent, relevant, free of any error of law or fact, and                       and Article 2(2), (3) and (4) of the Fourth Directive, as
internally consistent.
                                                                                amended by Directive 83/349/EEC and Directive 90/605/
                                                                                EEC, be interpreted as precluding the legislation of a
—     the Court of First Instance did not take into consideration               Member State under which no penalty may be imposed
      all the evidence put forward by the applicant to demon-                   for breach of the duty to publish true and fair company
      strate the kind of harassment he was subjected to, nor                    documents and which lays down a system of penalties
      has it assessed it as a whole,                                            which are not responsive to the criteria of effectiveness,
                                                                                proportionality and deterrent effect?
—     the Court of First Instance has failed to mention new facts
      consisting in a new restructuring of departments which
      left the applicant the only person not to be reintegrated
      into his former unit,                                               3.    Must the directives mentioned, and in particular the
                                                                                provisions of Article 44(2)(g) of the Treaty Establishing
—     the Court of First Instance, without the least explanation,               the European Community, Article 2(1)(f) and Article 6 of
      refused to include in the case-file recent documents which                the First Directive and Article 2(2), (3) and (4) of the
      came to light after the written procedure was closed and                  Fourth Directive, as amended by Directive 83/349/EEC
      which rebutted the Commission’s arguments.                                and Directive 90/605/EEC, be interpreted as precluding
                                                                                the legislation of a Member State under which, in the case
                                                                                of breach of the duty to publish true and fair company
                                                                                information, which is intended to protect ‘the interests of
                                                                                shareholders and third parties’, permits only shareholders
                                                                                and creditors to apply for the imposition of penalties, thus
                                                                                depriving third parties generally of effective protection?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
Ordinario di Torino — Sezione GIP by order of that                        4.    Must the directives mentioned, and in particular the
Court of 29 January 2003 in the case brought against                            provisions of Article 44(2)(g) of the Treaty Establishing
                      Giuseppe Momblano                                         the European Community, Article 2(1)(f) and Article 6 of
                                                                                the First Directive and Article 2(2), (3) and (4) of the
                          (Case C-52/03)                                        Fourth Directive, as amended by Directive 83/349/EEC
                                                                                and Directive 90/605/EEC, be interpreted as precluding
                                                                                the legislation of a Member State under which, in the case
                          (2003/C 83/16)                                        of breach of the duty to publish true and fair company
                                                                                information, which is intended to protect ‘the interests of
                                                                                shareholders and third parties’, lays down rules for the
                                                                                prosecution of offences and a system of penalties which
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                          are differentiated, reserving to cases where material
European Communities by order of the Tribunale Ordinario di                     damage or loss is caused to shareholders or creditors the
Torino — Sezione GIP (District Court, Turin, — Preliminary                      right to submit a complaint and apply for the imposition
Investigations Section) of 29 January 2003, received at the                     of sanctions and reserving to such cases sanctions which
Court Registry on 10 February 2003, for a preliminary ruling                    are serious and effective?
in the case brought against Giuseppe Momblano on the
following questions:
1.    May Article 6 of Directive 68/151/EEC (1) be interpreted
      as imposing an obligation upon the Member States to                 (1 ) OJ L 65 of 14.3.1968, p. 8.
      establish appropriate penalties not only for failure on the         (2 ) OJ L 222 of 14.8.1978, p. 11.
      part of commercial companies to publish their balance
      sheet and profit and loss statement but also for publishing
      inaccurate versions of those statements or of other
      company information addressed to shareholders or the
      public or of any other information concerning their


title: Case C-45/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel, Belgium lodged on 8 February 2008 — Spector Photo Group NV and Chris Van Raemdonck v Commissie voor het Bank-, Financie- en Assurantiewezen (CBFA)

text:
               26.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/14

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel, Belgium lodged on 8 February 2008 — Spector Photo Group NV and Chris Van Raemdonck v Commissie voor het Bank-, Financie- en Assurantiewezen (CBFA)
   (Case C-45/08)
   (2008/C 107/21)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Hof van beroep te Brussel, Belgium
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Spector Photo Group NV and Chris Van Raemdonck

      Defendant: Commissie voor het Bank-, Financie- en Assurantiewezen (CBFA)
   Questions referred

               1.

               Do the provisions of the Market Abuse Directive (1), and especially Article 2 thereof, call for full harmonisation, with the exception of those provisions which explicitly permit the Member States to interpret measures as they wish, or do they, in their entirety, concern a minimum of harmonisation?

               2.

               Should Article 2(1) of the Market Abuse Directive be interpreted as meaning that the mere fact that a person as referred to in Article 2(1) of that directive possesses inside information and acquires or disposes of, or tries to acquire or dispose of, for his own account or for the account of a third party, financial instruments to which that inside information relates, signifies in itself that he makes use of his inside information?

               3.

               If the answer to the second question is negative, must it then be assumed that the application of Article 2 of the Market Abuse Directive presupposes that a deliberate decision has been taken to use inside information?
               If such a decision may also be unwritten, is it then required that the decision to use inside information is evident from circumstances susceptible to no other interpretation, or is it sufficient that those circumstances could be so interpreted?

               4.

               If in the determination of the proportionate nature of an administrative sanction, as referred to in Article 14 of the Market Abuse Directive, account must be taken of the gains realised, should it be assumed that the publication of information to be designated as inside information has indeed had a significant effect on the price of the financial instrument?
               If so, what minimum level of price movement must have occurred for it to be possible to regard it as significant?

               5.

               Whether or not the price movement after the publication of information must be significant, what period should be taken into account after the publication of the information for the determination of the scale of the price movement, and what date should be taken as the basis for gauging the financial advantage gained in the determination of the appropriate sanction?

               6.

               In the light of the determination of the proportionate nature of the sanction, should Article 14 of the Market Abuse Directive be interpreted as meaning that, if a Member State has introduced the option of a criminal sanction, combined with an administrative sanction, account must be taken of the option and level of a criminal financial penalty in the consideration of its proportionality?

      (1)  Directive 2003/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on insider dealing and market manipulation (market abuse) (OJ 2003 L 96, p. 16).


title: Judgment of the Court of 3 October 2014 in Case E-21/13 — The Fédération Internationale de Football Association v EFTA Surveillance Authority (Action for annulment — Television broadcasting — Article 14 of Directive 2010/13/EU — Measures concerning events of major importance for an EEA State — FIFA World Cup — Freedom to provide services — Right to property — Statement of reasons)

text:
               7.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 150/9

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 3 October 2014
   in Case E-21/13
   The Fédération Internationale de Football Association v EFTA Surveillance Authority
   (Action for annulment — Television broadcasting — Article 14 of Directive 2010/13/EU — Measures concerning events of major importance for an EEA State — FIFA World Cup — Freedom to provide services — Right to property — Statement of reasons)
   (2015/C 150/09)
   In Case E-21/13, The Fédération Internationale de Football Association v EFTA Surveillance Authority – APPLICATION for the partial annulment of EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 309/13/COL of 16 July 2013 on the compatibility with EEA law of measures to be taken by Norway pursuant to Article 14 of Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2010 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (OJ L 95, 15.4.2010, p. 1), the Court, composed of Per Christiansen (acting President), Páll Hreinsson (Judge-Rapporteur), and Martin Ospelt (ad hoc judge), gave judgment on 3 October 2014, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The Court hereby:

               1.

               Dismisses the application.

               2.

               Orders the Fédération Internationale de Football Association to pay the costs of the proceedings.


title: Case T-427/13: Action brought on 12 August 2013 — Gruppo Norton v OHIM — Marín Nicolás (Gruppo Norton S.r.l.)

text:
               26.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/30

         Action brought on 12 August 2013 — Gruppo Norton v OHIM — Marín Nicolás (Gruppo Norton S.r.l.)
   (Case T-427/13)
   2013/C 313/56
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Gruppo Norton Srl (Carini, Italy) (represented by: García Lirola, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Victoriano Marín Nicolás (Alcantarailla, Spain)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               deliver a judgment in which, ruling on the substance of the case, it upholds the registration of the trade mark for all of the goods in respect of which it is sought.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Gruppo Norton Srl

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘Gruppo Norton S.r.l.’ for goods in Classes 7 and 9 — Community trade mark application No 10 169 753

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Victoriano Marín Nicolás

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish trade mark ‘NORTON HISPANO’ for goods in Class 9

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Inadmissibility of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Breach of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case T-11/98: Order of the Court of 7 January 2010 — van Hest v Council and Commission

text:
               13.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/50

         Order of the Court of 7 January 2010 — van Hest v Council and Commission
   (Case T-11/98) (1)

   2010/C 63/88

      Language of the case: Dutch

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

      (1)  OJ C 72, 7.3.1998.


title: Case T-797/14: Action brought on 6 December 2014 — Skype v OHIM — Sky International (SKYPE)

text:
               9.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/58

         Action brought on 6 December 2014 — Skype v OHIM — Sky International (SKYPE)
   (Case T-797/14)
   (2015/C 046/74)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Skype (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: A. Carboni and M. Browne, solicitors)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sky International AG (Zug, Suisse)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘SKYPE’ — Application for registration No 9 7 24  394

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 September 2014 in Case R 1075/2013-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision and remit the application to OHIM to allow it to proceed;

               —

               order OHIM and any intervening parties to pay their own costs and applicant’s costs and those of the appeal before the Fourth Board of Appeal in Case R 1075/2013-4 and of Opposition B 1 870 834 before the Opposition Division.

      Plea in law

               —

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


4.5.2002              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 109/41
       Removal from the register of Case C-115/01 (1)                ruling by the Employment Tribunal, Leeds (United Kingdom)):
                                                                     P. Breckon and M. Barrett v Secretary of State for Employment.
                        (2002/C 109/78)
                                                                     (1) OJ C 173 of 16.6.2001.
By order of 17 January 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-115/01: Commission of the
European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland.
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-183/01 (1)
(1) OJ C 150 of 19.5.2001.
                                                                                (2002/C 109/81)
                                                                     By order of 8 January 2002 the President of the Court of
       Removal from the register of Case    C-127/01 (1)             Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                     from the register of Case C-183/01: Commission of the
                        (2002/C 109/79)                              European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 200 of 14.7.2001.
By order of 30 January 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-127/01: Commission of the
European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
(1) OJ C 150 of 19.5.2001.                                                  Removal from the register of Case C-382/01 (1)
                                                                                (2002/C 109/82)
       Removal from the register of Case C-137/01 (1)                By order of 6 February 2002 the President of the Court of
                                                                     Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                        (2002/C 109/80)                              from the register of Case C-382/01: Commission of the
                                                                     European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain
                                                                     and Northern Ireland.
By order of 16 January 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-137/01 (Reference for a preliminary      (1) OJ C 331 of 24.11.2001.


               24.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 128/1

         (2008/C 128/01)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 116, 9.5.2008

   Past publications

      OJ C 107, 26.4.2008

      OJ C 92, 12.4.2008

      OJ C 79, 29.3.2008

      OJ C 64, 8.3.2008

      OJ C 51, 23.2.2008

      OJ C 37, 9.2.2008

   These texts are available on:

               EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu


title: Case C-565/12: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’instance d’Orléans (France) lodged on 6 December 2012 — LCL Le Crédit Lyonnais, SA v Fesih Kalhan

text:
               9.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/15

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’instance d’Orléans (France) lodged on 6 December 2012 — LCL Le Crédit Lyonnais, SA v Fesih Kalhan
   (Case C-565/12)
   2013/C 38/20
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal d’instance d’Orléans

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: LCL Le Crédit Lyonnais, SA

      Defendant: Fesih Kalhan

      Question referred

   Does the requirement for effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties laid down in Article 23 of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers, (1) in the case of breaches on the part of creditors of the obligations set out in the directive, preclude the existence of rules that allow the creditor, which has been penalised by forfeiture of its entitlement to interest as provided for in the French legislation, to benefit, after the imposition of the penalty, from interest payable by operation of law at a statutory rate, that is increased by five percentage points two months after a court decision has become enforceable, on the sums that remain payable by the consumer?

      (1)  Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC (OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66).


title: Case T-302/01: Action brought on 10 December 2001 by Gerhard Birkhoff against Commission of the European Communities

text:
16.2.2002              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 44/25
European Communities on 30 November 2001 by Alitalia —                  —     breach of the principle of sound administration, legal
Linee aeree italiane S.p.A., represented by Mario Siragusa, Gian              certainty and legitimate expectations, as well as of the
Michele Roberti, Giuseppe Scassellati, Francesca Maria Moretti                obligation imposed by Article 4(5) of Council Regulation
and Francesco Sciaudone, lawyers.                                             (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down
                                                                              detailed rules for the application of Article 93 EC (3),
                                                                              inasmuch as the aforementioned general principles and
                                                                              provision required the Commission to act within two
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   months;
—     annul the second decision in its entirety;                        —     breach of the rights of defence of the applicant, given
                                                                              that it was impossible for the applicant to defend itself by
                                                                              participating in the administrative procedure leading to
—     in the alternative, annul Article 1 of the second decision              the adoption of the contested act;
      in so far as it subjects compatibility of the injection of
      capital to compliance with the conditions laid down in
      the first decision;                                               —     breach of the obligation to provide a statement of reasons.
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                        (1) OJ 2001 L 271, p. 28.
                                                                        (2) Case T-296/97 Alitalia v Commission [2000] ECR II-3871.
                                                                        (3) OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The present action has been brought against Commission
Decision 2001/723/EC of 18 July 2001 concerning the
recapitalisation of the applicant company (1). The applicant
claims that that decision reproduces the wording of Articles 1,
2 and 3 of Decision 97/789/EC, whereby the defendant
authorised the aid granted by Italy to Alitalia, in the shape of a      Action brought on 10 December 2001 by Gerhard Bir-
contribution of capital totalling ITL 2 750 billion intended to          khoff against Commission of the European Communities
cover the restructuring of the company. The action against the
latter decision was upheld by the Court (2) on the grounds of
failure to state reasons and manifest error of assessment.                                       (Case T-302/01)
                                                                                (2002/C 44/45)
In the decision under challenge in the present action, the
Commission notes that Article 233 EC does not require it to
reopen the procedure and once again follow all the stages of
that procedure. In regard to the lack of reasoning, the                                    (Language of the case: Italian)
Commission states specifically that the procedure in question
may be taken up again from the stage at which the flaw in
question occurred. So far as manifest errors of assessment are
concerned, the second decision must be based on the factual
evidence gathered when the first decision was adopted and the           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
errors identified by the Court relate to assessments of fact the        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
truth of which was not in dispute.                                      European Communities on 10 December 2001 by Gerhard
                                                                        Birkhoff, represented by Vincenzo Salvatore, lawyer
In support of its arguments, the applicant claims:
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     infringement of Article 233 EC;
                                                                        —     annul the decision of the Commission of the European
                                                                              Communities, Directorate General — Admin B, of
—     infringement of Article 88(2) EC inasmuch as the Com-                   26 September 2001, as manifestly unfounded in fact and
      mission could not, in the present case, adopt a new                     in law, together with any preceding, related or subsequent
      decision of content identical to the preceding annulled                 acts, in particular ‘Notification of amendment No 10 to
      decision without initiating once again the procedure                    the demand for payment of 21 February 1992’, issued on
      provided for therein.                                                   4 July 2001.
 ---pagebreak--- C 44/26                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     16.2.2002
—     order the Commission to compensate the applicant for               The applicant claims that the Court should:
      the ensuing damage, in particular those arising from the
      loss of Sickness Insurance cover and other non-material
      damage;                                                            —     annul the decision of the Commission not to take action
                                                                               on complaint No 1999/5330;
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                         —     order the European Commission to take the following
                                                                               measures:
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                               1.    require the Government of the Kingdom of Spain
                                                                                not to implement the decision to alter the route
                                                                                followed by Subsection II (Ebro river crossing) of the
The applicant, a former official of the defendant institution, at                    Zaragoza-Lleida section of the Madrid-Barcelona-
present retired, contests the withdrawal, with retrospective                         French border high speed line, known as Solución
effect, of family allowance in respect of a dependent daughter.                      Sur Alternativa B (Southern Solution, Option B),
The contested measure is based on ‘evidence that the income                          declared environmentally viable by the Spanish
from gainful employment of [his] daughter exceeds 40 % of                            Council of Ministers on 25 February 1999 and
the basic salary of an official in Grade D 4/1’.                                     approved by way of resolution by the Secretary of
                                                                                State for Infrastructure and Transport of 17 March
                                                                                1999;
In support of his arguments, the applicant claims:
                                                                               2.    further require the Kingdom of Spain to ensure that
—     unlawfulness of the act on the ground of misuse of
                                                                                those works be carried out using the only properly
      powers (lack and inadequacy of reasons, erroneous
                                                                                approved route adopted by resolution of the Sec-
      assumptions and distortion of the facts)
                                                                                retary of State for Town and Country Planning of
                                                                                24 February 1995 as Alternativa Norte (Northern
—     infringement of Article 2(5) of Annex VII to the Staff                         Option); and
      Regulations
                                                                               3.    any other measure which in consequence of the
—     breach of the principle of non-discrimination                                  preceding orders may be deemed appropriate,
                                                                                including a warning from the Commission to the
—     breach of the principle of legitimate expectations and                         Spanish authorities that enforcement measures
      failure to protect acquired rights.                                            could be adopted in the absence of adequate com-
                                                                                pliance, including infringement proceedings and/or
                                                                                the withdrawal of European funding for the project.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
Action brought on 30 November 2001 by Ayuntamiento
de Osera de Ebro against Commission of the European
                           Communities                                   The applicant states that it is one of the municipal authorities
                                                                         affected by the route of the High Speed Madrid-Zaragoza-
                         (Case T-303/01)                                 French Border railway line, for which the Spanish Government
                                                                         obtained funding from the Community cohesion fund (Project
                                                                         No 95/11/65/007) (1). Initially, the Spanish administrative
                          (2002/C 44/46)                                 authorities approved the route for Subsection II of the
                                                                         Zaragoza-Lleida section, which opted, from the two possible
                                                                         choices at the Source of the Ebro, for the ‘Northern Option’,
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)                       which did not affect the protected area of the Soto de Aguilar,
                                                                         a riverside wilderness of great ecological and wildlife value
                                                                         within the municipality limits of the applicant. Subsequently,
                                                                         despite the report to the contrary drawn up by the competent
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                environmental authorities, the Spanish Government decided
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               to alter the route initially planned, opting for Solución Sur
European Communities on 30 November 2001 by Ayuntami-                    Alternativa B (Southern Solution, Option B), which not only
ento de Osera de Ebro (Zaragoza), Osera de Ebro (Zaragoza,               is the less environmentally friendly but is also the more
Spain), represented by Javier Ariño Barcelona, lawyer.                  expensive.


title: Case C-354/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Verden (Germany) lodged on 27 June 2016 — Ute Kleinsteuber v Mars GmbH

text:
               26.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 350/14

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Verden (Germany) lodged on 27 June 2016 — Ute Kleinsteuber v Mars GmbH
   (Case C-354/16)
   (2016/C 350/18)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Arbeitsgericht Verden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ute Kleinsteuber

      Defendant: Mars GmbH

      Questions referred

               1.

                           (a)

                           . Is the relevant EU law, in particular Clause 4(1) and (2) of the Framework Agreement on Part-Time Work annexed to Directive 97/81 (1) concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC as amended by Directive 98/23 (2) and Article 4 of Directive 2006/54/EC (3) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation in conjunction with Council Directive 2000/78/EC (4) of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, to be interpreted as precluding national statutory provisions or practices which, in determining the amount of an occupational old-age pension, distinguish between employment income falling below the ceiling for the assessment of contributions to the statutory pension scheme and employment income exceeding that ceiling (the ‘split pension formula’) and in so doing do not treat income from part-time employment in such a manner that the income payable in respect of corresponding full-time employment is first determined, the proportion above and below the contribution assessment ceiling is established on that basis, and that proportion is then applied to the reduced income from part-time employment?
                           If Question 1(a) is answered in the negative:

                           (b)

                           Is the relevant EU law, in particular Clause 4(1) and (2) of the Framework Agreement on Part-Time Work annexed to Directive 97/81 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC as amended by Directive 98/23 and Article 4 of Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation in conjunction with Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, to be interpreted as precluding national statutory provisions or practices which, in determining the amount of an occupational old-age pension, distinguish between employment income falling below the ceiling for the assessment of contributions to the statutory pension scheme and employment income exceeding that ceiling (the ‘split pension formula’) and, in the case of an employee who has worked on both a full-time and part-time basis, do not take account of specific periods (e.g. individual calendar years) but determine a uniform degree of employment for the total duration of the employment relationship and apply the split pension formula only to the resulting average remuneration?

               2.

               Is the relevant EU law, in particular the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age, enshrined in Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and given specific expression by Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, in particular Articles 1, 2 and 6 thereof, to be interpreted as precluding national statutory provisions or practices which provide for an occupational old-age pension in the amount corresponding to the ratio of the employee’s actual length of service to the time from the beginning of his employment up to his reaching the normal retirement age under the statutory pension scheme (calculated on the basis of the pro rata temporis principle) and in so doing apply a maximum limit of reckonable years of service, with the result that employees having completed their period of service in an undertaking at a younger age receive a smaller occupational pension than their colleagues who completed their period of service at an older age, even though both sets of employees completed an equal length of service in the undertaking?

      (1)  Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC — Annex: Framework agreement on part-time work (OJ 1998 L 14, p. 9).

      (2)  Council Directive 98/23/EC of 7 April 1998 on the extension of Directive 97/81/EC on the framework agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (OJ 1998 L 131, p. 10).

      (3)  Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast) (OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23).

      (4)  Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16).


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 February 2004 in Case C-236/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep): J. Slob v Productschap Zuivel (Milk and milk products — Direct sales — Reference quantity — Overruns — Additional levy on milk — Obligation on producer to keep stock accounts — Contents — Interpretation of Article 7(1)(f) of Regulation (EEC) No 536/93)

text:
3.4.2004                 EN                            Official Journal of the European Union                                                C 85/9
2.    Article 1(3) of Directive 89/665, as amended by Directive 92/            The first sentence of Article 7(1) and Article 7(1)(f) of Commission
      50, must be interpreted as precluding a person who has                   Regulation (EEC) No 536/93 of 9 March 1993 laying down
      participated in a contract award procedure from being regarded           detailed rules on the application of the additional levy on milk and
      as having lost his interest in obtaining the contract on the             milk products should be interpreted as meaning that the stock
      ground that, before seeking the review provided for by the               accounts which producers are required to keep need state only the
      Directive, he failed to refer the case to a conciliation committee       quantities, per month and per product, of milk and/or milk products
      such as Bundes-Vergabekontrollkommission (Federal Public                 sold.
      Procurement Review Commission, established by the Bundesge-
      setz über die Vergabe von Aufträgen (Bundesvergabegesetz)
      1997 (1997 Federal Law on Public Procurement).                           (1) OJ C 202 of 24.8.2002.
(1) OJ C 219 of 14.9.2002.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 5 February 2004
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                               in Case C-265/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                               the Corta suprema di cassazione): Frahuil SA v Assitalia
                          (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                SpA (1)
                        of 12 February 2004                                    (Brussels Convention — Special jurisdiction — Article 5(1)
                                                                               — Meaning of ‘matters relating to a contract’ — Contract
                                                                               of guarantee entered into without the knowledge of the
in Case C-236/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                      principal debtor — Subrogation of the guarantor to the
the College van Beroep): J. Slob v Productschap Zuivel (1)                     rights of the creditor — Right of recourse of the guarantor
                                                                                against the principal debtor)
(Milk and milk products — Direct sales — Reference
quantity — Overruns — Additional levy on milk — Obli-                                                     (2004/C 85/13)
gation on producer to keep stock accounts — Contents —
Interpretation of Article 7(1)(f) of Regulation (EEC) No 536/                                      (Language of the case: Italian)
                                   93)
                                                                               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                            (2004/C 85/12)                                                        in the European Court Reports)
                     (Language of the case: Dutch)                             In Case C-265/02: Reference to the Court under the Protocol
                                                                               of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice of
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published         the Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the
                    in the European Court Reports)                             enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters by
                                                                               the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) for a preliminary ruling
                                                                               in the proceedings pending before that court between Frahuil
                                                                               SA and Assitalia SpA, on the interpretation of Article 5(1) of
                                                                               the abovementioned Convention of 27 September 1968 (OJ
In Case C-236/02: Reference to the Court under Article 234                     1978 L 304, p. 36), as amended by the Convention of
EC by the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Nether-                   9 October 1978 on the accession of the Kingdom of Denmark,
lands) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending                     Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
before that court between J. Slob and Productschap Zuivel, on                  Ireland (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 1 and — amended version —
the interpretation of Article 7(1)(f) of Commission Regulation                 p. 77), by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the
(EEC) No 536/93 of 9 March 1993 laying down detailed rules                     accession of the Hellenic Republic (OJ 1982 L 388, p. 1) and
on the application of the additional levy on milk and milk                     by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the accession of the
products (OJ 1993 L 57, p. 12), the Court (Sixth Chamber),                     Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic (OJ 1989
composed of: C. Gulmann, acting for the President of the Sixth                 L 285, p. 1), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann
Chamber, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, J.-P. Puissochet, F. Macken                     (Rapporteur), acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber,
and N. Colneric (Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate                    C. W. A. Timmermans and S. von Bahr, Judges; P. Léger,
General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator Registrar, has                  Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
given a judgment on 12 February 2004, in which it has ruled:                   on 5 February 2004, in which it has ruled:


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 20 November 2003 in Case C-212/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Innsbruck): Margarete Unterpertinger v Pensionsversicherungsanstalt der Arbeiter (Sixth VAT Directive — Exemption for medical care provided in the exercise of the medical and paramedical professions — Expert medical report)

text:
C 7/6                    EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                              10.1.2004
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                                          of 18 November 2003
                       of 20 November 2003                                   in Case C-216/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                             the Handelsgericht Wien): Budějovický Budvar, národní
                                                                                podnik v Rudolf Ammersin GmbH (1)
in Case C-212/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Landesgericht Innsbruck): Margarete Unterpertinger                       (Protection of geographical indications and designations of
       v Pensionsversicherungsanstalt der Arbeiter (1)                       origin — Bilateral convention between a Member State and
                                                                             a non-member country protecting indications of geographical
                                                                             source from that non-member country — Articles 28 EC and
(Sixth VAT Directive — Exemption for medical care provided                   30 EC — Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 — Article 307 EC
in the exercise of the medical and paramedical professions                             — Succession of States in respect of treaties)
                     — Expert medical report)
                                                                                (2004/C 7/09)
                            (2004/C 7/08)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                           in the European Court Reports)
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             In Case C-216/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
                                                                             by the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria) for a preliminary ruling
In Case C-212/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234                   in the proceedings pending before that court between Budějo-
EC by the Landesgericht Innsbruck (Austria) for a preliminary                vický Budvar, národní podnik and Rudolf Ammersin GmbH
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between                  on the interpretation of Articles 28 EC, 30 EC and 307 EC,
Margarete Unterpertinger and Pensionsversicherungsanstalt                    and Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on
der Arbeiter, on the interpretation of Article 13A(1)(c) of Sixth            the protection of geographical indications and designations of
Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the                           origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 1992 L 208,
harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to                   p. 1), as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 535/97 of
turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform                   17 March 1997 (OJ 1997 L 83, p. 3), the Court, composed of:
basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) and the Court’s case-              V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans (Rappor-
law resulting, in particular, from Case C-384/98 D. v W.                     teur), C. Gulmann and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Presidents of
[2000] ECR I-6795, the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:                   Chambers), D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet,
A. Rosas (Rapporteur), acting for the President of the Fifth                 R. Schintgen, N. Colneric and S. von Bahr, Judges; A. Tizzano,
Chamber, D.A.O. Edward and A. La Pergola, Judges; C. Stix-                   Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has
Hackl, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Adminis-                    given a judgment on 18 November 2003, in which it has
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 20 November               ruled:
2003, in which it has ruled:
                                                                             1.    Article 28 EC and Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of
Article 13A(1)(c) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of                         14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications
17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member                         and designations of origin for agricultural products and
States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added                   foodstuffs, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 535/
tax: uniform basis of assessment, is to be interpreted as meaning that             97 of 17 March 1997, do not preclude the application of a
the exemption from value added tax under that provision does not                   provision of a bilateral agreement between a Member State and
apply to the services of a doctor consisting of making an expert report            a non-member country under which a simple and indirect
on a person’s state of health in order to support or exclude a claim               indication of geographical origin from that non-member country
for payment of a disability pension. The fact that the medical expert              is accorded protection in the importing Member State, whether
was instructed by a court or pension insurance institution is irrelevant           or not there is any risk of consumers being misled, and the
in that respect.                                                                   import of a product lawfully marketed in another Member State
                                                                                may be prevented.
(1) OJ C 212 of 28.7.2001.                                                   2.    Article 28 EC precludes the application of a provision of a
                                                                                bilateral agreement between a Member State and a non-
                                                                                member country under which a name which in that country
                                                                                does not directly or indirectly refer to the geographical source of


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 15 November 2001 in Joined Cases T-83/99 and T-84/99 DEP: Carlo Ripa di Meana and Leoluca Orlando v European Parliament (Taxation of costs)

text:
2.2.2002                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 31/9
1.    Annuls the ‘Operational Rules on the consultation levels, the               ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
      consultation body and related procedures’ agreed between
      the Commission and the majority of the trade unions/staff
      associations on 19 January 2000, in so far as they exclude the
      trade union ‘Action & Défense’ from the consultation body;                                  of 19 September 2001
2.    Orders the Commission to pay all the costs.
                                                                            in Case T-332/99: Paul Jestädt v Council of the European
                                                                             Union and Commission of the European Communities (1)
(1) OJ C 61 of 24.2.2001.
                                                                            (Action for damages — Non-contractual liability — Milk —
                                                                            Additional levy — Reference quantity — Regulation (EC)
                                                                            No 2330/98 — Compensation for producers — Limitation
                                                                                — Action manifestly inadmissible)
                                                                                (2002/C 31/18)
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                       of 15 November 2001                                                     (Language of the case: German)
in Joined Cases T-83/99 and T-84/99 DEP: Carlo Ripa di
    Meana and Leoluca Orlando v European Parliament (1)
                         (Taxation of costs)
                                                                            In Case T-332/99: Paul Jestädt, residing in Großenlüder
                                                                            (Germany), represented by R.J. Seimetz, lawyer, with an address
                            (2002/C 31/17)                                  for service Luxembourg, against Council of the European
                                                                            Union (Agent: A.-M. Colaert) and Commission of the European
                                                                            Communities (Agent: M. Niejahr) — application for compen-
                     (Language of the case: Italian)                        sation under Article 235 and the second paragraph of
                                                                            Article 288 EC, for damage allegedly suffered by the applicant
                                                                            by reason of being prevented from marketing milk pursuant
                                                                            Council Regulation (EC) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984
In Joined Cases T-83/99 and T-84/99 DEP: Carlo Ripa di                      adopting general rules for the application of the levy referred
Meana, former Italian Member of the European Parliament,                    to in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the
residing in Montecastello di Vibio (Italy), Leoluca Orlando,                milk and milk products sector (OJ 1984 L 90, p. 13), as
former Italian Member of the European Parliament, residing in               supplemented by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1371/84
Palermo (Italy), represented by W. Viscardini Donà, assisted by             of 16 May 1984 laying down detailed rules for the application
G. Donà, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg,                of the additional levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation
against European Parliament (Agents: A. Caiola and G. Ricci)                (EEC) No 804/68 (OJ L 132, p. 11) — the Court of
—application for taxation of costs to be paid by the defendant              First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of P. Mengozzi,
to the applicants in compliance with the judgment of the                    President, V. Tiili and R.M. Moura Ramos, Judges; H. Jung,
Court of 26 October 2000 in Joined Cases T-83/99 to T-85/99                 Registrar, made an order on 19 September 2001, the operative
Ripa di Meana and Others v Parliament [2000] ECR II-3493                    part of which is as follows:
— the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of
M. Vilaras, President, V. Tiili and P. Lindh, Judges; H. Jung,
Registrar, made an order on 15 November 2001, the operative
                                                                            1.    The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.
part of which is as follows:
The total amount of costs to be paid by the European Parliament to          2.    The applicant shall bear the costs.
the applicants is fixed at ITL 40 000 000.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 63, 4.3.2000.
( 1) OJ C 160 of 5.6.1999.