title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 11 July 1996 in Case T-271/94: Eugénio Branco Lda v. Commission of the European Communities (Applications for annulment - European Social Fund - Reduction of financial assistance initially granted - Absence of an act which may be challenged - Inadmissibility)

text:
 No C 247/ 14          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   24 . 8 . 96
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              compensation of BFR 14 797 706 for damage allegedly
                        of 11 July 1996                               suffered by the applicant following reduction of the
                                                                      financial assistance granted to the other party to a contract
 in Case T-161 /94 : Sinochem Heilongjiang v. Council of the          concluded by it in relation to a project financed by the
                 European Communities ( 1 )                           European Development Fund — the Court of First Instance
 (Anti-dumping — Action for annulment — Admissibility —               ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of R. Schintgen , President, and
           Conduct of the investigation — Injury)                     R. García-Valdecasas and J. Azizi , Judges; H. Jung,
                           ( 96/C 247/28 )                            Registrar, gave a judgment on 1 1 July 1996 , in which it:
                                                                       1 . dismisses the action;
              (Language of the case: English)
                                                                      2 . orders the applicant to pay the costs.
In Case T-161 /94 : Sinochem Heilongjiang, established at
Harbin ( China ), represented by Izzet M. Sinan, Barrister, of        (') OJ No C 174 , 25 . 6 . 1994 .
the Bar of England and Wales, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt & Medernach ,
 8— 10 Rue Mathias Hardt v. Council of the European
Communities ( Agents : Erik H. Stein , Ramon Torrent and
Hans-Jürgen Rabe ), supported by the Commission of the
European Communities ( Agents : Eric L. White and
Claus-Michael Happe ) — application for annulment of                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 3434/91 of 25 November
 1 991 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of                                  of 11 July 1996
oxalic acid originating in India or the People 's Republic of         in Case T-271 /94 : Eugenio Branco Lda v. Commission of
China ( OJ No L 326 , 1991 , p. 6 ) — the Court of First                             the European Communities (')
Instance ( First Chamber, Extended Composition ),                     (Applications for annulment — European Social Fund —
composed of A. Saggio, President, and C. W. Bellamy, A.               Reduction of financial assistance initially granted —
Kalogeropoulos, V. Tiili and R. M. Moura Ramos, Judges;              Absence of an act which may be challenged —
J. Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a                                 Inadmissibility)
judgment on 1 1 July 1996 , in which it:
                                                                                96/C 247/30 )
1 . dismisses the application;
                                                                                (Language of the case: Portuguese)
2 . orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                                                                     In Case T-271 /94 : Eugenio Branco Lda , having its registered
(') OJ No C 103 , 23 . 4 . 1992 .                                    office in Lisbon , represented by Bolota Belchior, of the Bar
                                                                     of Vila Nova de Gaia , with an address for service in
                                                                     Luxembourg at the Chambers of Jacques Schroeder, against
                                                                     Commission of the European Communities ( Agent: Ana
                                                                     Maria Alves Vieira ) — application for the annulment of a
                                                                     decision allegedly taken by the defendant and notified by a
                                                                     letter from the Departamento para os Assuntos do Fundo
                                                                     Social Europeu ( Department of European Social Fund
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             Affairs ) of 25 May 1 994 and by a letter from the defendant
                        of 11 July 1996                              of 16 June 1994 rejecting a claim for final payment of
in Case T-l 75 /94 : International Procurement Services SA v.
                                                                     financial assistance granted to the applicant by the
                                                                     European Social Fund for two training programmes,
       Commission of the European Communities ( 1 )                  reducing such assistance and seeking repayment of the
(Action for compensation — Public contract — European                advances previously paid by the European Social Fund and
Development Fund — Non-contractual liability —                       the Portuguese State — the Court of First Instance of the
           Determination of the origin of goods)                     European Communities ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of R.
                          ( 96/C 247/29 )                            Schintgen , President, and R. García-Valdecasas and J. Azizi,
                                                                     Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
                                                                     gave a judgment on 11 July 1996 , in which it:
              (Language of the case: French)
                                                                      1 . dismisses the application as inadmissible;
In Case T-l 75/94 : International Procurement Services SA ,
whose registered office is in Brussels , represented by Peter        2 . orders the defendant to pay the costs.
De Troyer, of the Audenarde Bar, and Lydia Lorang, of the
Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in                       ( ) OJ No C 288 , 15 . 10 . 1994 .
Luxembourg at the latter's Chambers, 6 Rue Heine, against
Commission of the European Communities ( Agents :
Etienne Lasnet and Hervé Lehman ) — application for


title: Case F-78/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 29 April 2015 — Todorova Androva v Council (Civil Service — Promotion — 2011 promotion year — Not included in the list of officials eligible for promotion — Article 45 of the Staff Regulations — Two years’ seniority in the grade — Failure to take account of the period of work carried out as a member of the temporary staff — Difference in treatment due to the legal nature of the employment of the workers concerned — Directive 1999/70/EC — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Clause 4 — Reliance — Exclusion)

text:
               15.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 198/48

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 29 April 2015 — Todorova Androva v Council
   (Case F-78/12) (1)

   ((Civil Service - Promotion - 2011 promotion year - Not included in the list of officials eligible for promotion - Article 45 of the Staff Regulations - Two years’ seniority in the grade - Failure to take account of the period of work carried out as a member of the temporary staff - Difference in treatment due to the legal nature of the employment of the workers concerned - Directive 1999/70/EC - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Clause 4 - Reliance - Exclusion))
   (2015/C 198/65)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Viara Todorova Androva (Rhode-Saint-Genese, Belgium) (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J. Herrmann and M. Bauer, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of the Council's decision not to include the applicant in the list of officials eligible for promotion in respect of 2011.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Ms Todorova Androva to bear her own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission and the European Court of Auditors to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 295, 29.9.2012, p. 34.


title: NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITIONS

text:
No C 384/ 10      EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                            19 . 12 . 96
                                      COURT OF JUSTICE
                                         NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITIONS
                                                    (96/C 384/ 11 )
           The Court of Justice of the European Communities has published in the Official Journal of the
           European Communities No C 384 A of 19 December 1996 the following open competitions :
           French edition
           CJ/LA/ 19 (lawyer-linguists of French mother-tongue)
           Dutch edition
           CJ/LA/20 (lawyer-linguists of Dutch mother-tongue)
           To obtain a copy of the Official Journal please apply to the Personnel Division of the Court of
           Justice of the European Communities, L-2925 Luxembourg.
           Closing date for applications : 31 January 1997


title: Case C-344/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administratif de Montreuil (France) lodged on 4 July 2011 — International Values Series of the DFA Investment Trust Company v Ministre du budget, des comptes publics, de la fonction publique et de la réforme de l’Etat

text:
               10.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/35

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administratif de Montreuil (France) lodged on 4 July 2011 — International Values Series of the DFA Investment Trust Company v Ministre du budget, des comptes publics, de la fonction publique et de la réforme de l’Etat
   (Case C-344/11)
   2011/C 269/70
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal Administratif de Montreuil

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: International Values Series of the DFA Investment Trust Company

      Defendant: Ministre du budget, des comptes publics, de la fonction publique et de la réforme de l’Etat

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must the situation of the shareholders be taken into account together with that of undertakings for collective investments in transferable securities (UCITS)?

               2.

               If so, what are the conditions under which the withholding tax at issue may be regarded as consistent with the principle of free movement of capital?


title: Case C-591/13: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 April 2015 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Tax legislation — Deferral of taxation of capital gains realised on the sale of certain capital assets — Recovery of the tax — Freedom of establishment — Article 49 TFEU — Article 31 of the EEA Agreement — Difference in treatment between permanent establishments located within the territory of a Member State and permanent establishments located within the territory of another Member State of the European Union or of the European Economic Area — Proportionality)

text:
               15.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 198/9

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 April 2015 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-591/13) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Tax legislation - Deferral of taxation of capital gains realised on the sale of certain capital assets - Recovery of the tax - Freedom of establishment - Article 49 TFEU - Article 31 of the EEA Agreement - Difference in treatment between permanent establishments located within the territory of a Member State and permanent establishments located within the territory of another Member State of the European Union or of the European Economic Area - Proportionality))
   (2015/C 198/11)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: W. Mölls and W. Roels, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and K. Petersen, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Declares that, by adopting and maintaining in force the tax scheme provided for in Paragraph 6b of the Law on Income Tax (Einkommensteuergesetz), which makes the benefit of the deferral of taxation of the capital gains realised on the sale of a capital asset forming part of the assets of a permanent establishment of the taxable person located within German territory subject to the condition that those capital gains are reinvested in the acquisition of replacement assets forming part of the assets of a permanent establishment of the taxable person located within that territory, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 TFEU and Article 31 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992;

               2)

               Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.


title: ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 10 December 1997 in Case T-260/97 R: Camar Srl v. Commission of the European Communities (Common organisation of the markets - Bananas - Application for interim measures - Request for the issue of import licences)

text:
2.5.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 137/15
Ferro) Ð application for, first, a declaration that the             1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Commission failed to act by failing to rule on Camar's
application for the allocation of licences to import                2. Each party is to bear its own costs.
bananas from non-member countries or non-traditional
ACP bananas for 1997 and subsequent years on the basis
                                                                    (1) OJ C 331, 1.11.1997.
of the quantities which it had marketed in 1988, 1989 and
1990, and, second, an order requiring the Commission to
pay compensation for the damage occasioned by that
failure Ð the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber),
composed of: P. Lindh, President, K. Lenaerts and J. D.
Cooke, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on
28 January 1998, the operative part of which is as                                 ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
follows.                                                                      OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 10 December 1997
1. It is unnecessary to adjudicate in the action for a              in Case T-260/97 R: Camar Srl v. Commission of the
    declaration of failure to act.                                                      European Communities
                                                                    (Common organisation of the markets Ð Bananas Ð
2. Case T-172/97 is removed from the Register of the                Application for interim measures Ð Request for the issue
    Court of First Instance.                                                              of import licences)
                                                                                (98/C 137/33)
3. Each party shall bear its own costs, including those
    relating to the application for interim measures.                               (Language of the case: Italian)
4. The intervener in the proceedings for interim measures           In Case T-260/97 R: Camar Srl, established in Florence
    shall bear its own costs.                                       (Italy), represented by Wilma Viscardini DonaÁ, assisted by
                                                                    Mariano Paolin and Simonetta DonaÁ, of the Padua Bar,
(1) OJ C 271, 6.9.1997.
                                                                    with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                    Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8-10, rue Mathias Hardt,
                                                                    against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                    (Agents: Jan-Peter Hix and Antonio Tanca), supported by
                                                                    the French Republic (Agent: FreÂdeÂric Pascal), application
                                                                    to the President of the Court of First Instance pursuant to
                                                                    Articles 185 and 186 to the EC Treaty for an order (a)
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                           suspending the Commission's decision of 17 July 1997
                      of 13 March 1998                              rejecting the application submitted by Camar seeking the
                                                                    adoption of specific measures within the meaning of
in Case T-247/97: Maria Lonuzzo-Murgante v. European                Article 30 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 of
                        Parliament (1)                              13 February 1993 on the common organisation of the
(Officials Ð Application for person to be treated as                market in bananas (1) and, furthermore, (b) requiring the
dependent child Ð Time limit for bringing an action Ð               Commission to calculate the number of category B
    Council Regulation No 1182/71 Ð Inadmissibility)                licences, to which Camar is entitled in respect of 1998, by
                                                                    reference to the quantities of bananas imported in the
                        (98/C 137/32)                               three-year period from 1988 to 1990, and, in the
                                                                    alternative, to calculate the said licences by reference to
               (Language of the case: French)                       the quantities of bananas imported in the three-year
                                                                    period from 1989 to 1991, or by applying the criteria
                                                                    pointed out by the European Parliament and its
In Case T-247/97: Maria Lonuzzo-Murgante, official of               Amendment No 8 to the proposal of the Commission,
the European Parliament, residing in Luxembourg,                    submitted on 8 March 1996, to amend Regulation (EEC)
represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis, Thierry Demaseure and              No 404/93 and, in the further alternative, to grant to
Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for             Camar financial aid equal to the market value of the
service in Luxembourg at Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30, rue             category B licences to be calculated according to one of
de Cessange, against European Parliament (Agents:                   the criteria set out above Ð the President of the Court of
Manfred Peter and Yannis Pantalis) Ð application for the            First Instance made an order on 10 December 1997, the
annulment of the decision of the Parliament of 6 February           operative part of which is as follows.
1997 rejecting the applicant's application for her daughter
to be treated as a dependent child and, in so far as                1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
necessary, an application for annulment of the implied
decision of 6 September 1997 rejecting the applicant's
complaint against the abovementioned decision Ð the                 2. Costs are reserved.
Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of P.
Lindh, President, K. Lenaerts and J. D. Cooke, Judges; H.           (1) OJ L 47, 25.2.1993, p. 1.
Jung, Registrar, made an order on 13 March 1998, the
operative part of which is as follows.


3 . 6 . 95                  EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                            No C 137/ 15
the EC Treaty in so far as it penalizes in general the                            Removal from the register of Case C-4 15/92 ( )
importation by private individuals of medicaments or, as in                                            ( 95/C 137/33 )
this case , spectacles from other Member States ?
                                                                           By order of 17 February 1995 the President of the Court of
                                                                           Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                           from the register of Case C-415/92 : Italian Republic
                                                                           v. Commission of the European Communities .
Action brought on 11 April 1995 by the Commission of the
 European Communities against the Portuguese Republic
                                                                           ( t ) OJ No C 33 , 5 . 2 . 1993 .
                              ( Case C-125/95 )
                                ( 95/C 137/32 )
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
before the Court of Justice on 11 April 1995 by the
Commission of the European Communities, represented by
Jose Luis Iglesias Buhigues and Sergio de Carvalho, Legal                         Removal from the register of Case C-397/93 ( )
Advisers , acting as Agents, with an address for service in                                             ( 95/C 137/34 )
Luxembourg at the office of Georgios Kremlis , of its Legal
Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                           By order of 16 February 1995 the President of the Court of
The applicant claims that the Court should :                               Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                           from the register of Case C-397/93 ( reference for a
— declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed                  preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
     period all the measures necessary to implement in                     Genova ): Voltri Terminal Europa SpA v. Giorgio Donati
     full :                                                                and Others .
     — Council Directive 91 /67/EEC (') of 28 January 1991                 (>) OJ No C 277, 15 . 10 . 1993 .
          concerning the animal health conditions governing
          the placing on the market of aquaculture animals and
          products,
     — Council Directive 91 /492/EEC ( 2 ) of 15 July 1991
           laying down the health conditions for the production
           and the placing on the market of live bivalve
           molluscs ,                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-52/94 ( ! )
                                                                                ( 95/C 137/35 )
     — Council Directive 91 /495/EEC ( i ) of 22 July 1991
           laying down the health conditions for the production
          and the placing on the market of fishery products ,              By order of 16 February 1 995 the President of the Court of
           and                                                             Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                           from the register of Case C-52/94 : Italian Republic
     — Council Directive 92/48/EEC ( 4 ) of 16 June 1992                   v. Commission of the European Communities .
           laying down the minimum hygiene rules applicable
          to fishery products caught on board certain vessels in           (') OJ No C 103 , 11 . 4 . 1994 .
           accordance with Article 3 ( 1 ) ( a ) ( i ) of Directive
           91 /493 /EEC ,
— the Portuguese Republic has failed to comply with its
     obligations under the Treaty,
— order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs .
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-89/94 (')
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                                                     ( 95/C 137/36 )
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in
Case C-79/95 . The period prescribed for transposing the                   By order of 8 March 1995 the President of the Court of
Directives expired on 1 January 1993 .                                     Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                           from the register of Case C-89/94 : Commission of the
(')  OJ  No    L 46 , 19 . 2 . 1991 , p . 1 .
                                                                           European Communities v. Hellenic Republic .
(2)  OJ  No    L 268 , 24 . 9 . 1991 , p . 1 .
(;)  OJ  No    L 268 , 24 . 9 . 1991 , p . 15 .                            (M OJ No C 132 , 14 . 5 . 1994 .
(4 ) OJ  No    L 187, 7. 7 . 1992 , p . 41 .


title: Case T-331/09: Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2010 — Novartis AG v OHIM — Sanochemia Pharmazeutika (TOLPOSAN) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark TOLPOSAN — Earlier international word mark TONOPAN — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               5.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/14

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2010 — Novartis AG v OHIM — Sanochemia Pharmazeutika (TOLPOSAN)
   (Case T-331/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark TOLPOSAN - Earlier international word mark TONOPAN - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2011/C 38/24
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Novartis AG (Basle, Switzerland) (represented by: N. Hebeis, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Sanochemia Pharmazeutika AG (Vienna, Austria)

      Re:

   ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 June 2009 (Case R 1601/2007-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Novartis AG and Sanochemia Pharmazeutika AG

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Novartis AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 267, 7.11.2009.


title: Case C-249/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (Romania), lodged on 22 May 2012 — Corina-Hrisi Tulică v Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală de Soluționare a Contestațiilor

text:
               11.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/7

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (Romania), lodged on 22 May 2012 — Corina-Hrisi Tulică v Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală de Soluționare a Contestațiilor
   (Case C-249/12)
   2012/C 243/11
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Corina-Hrisi Tulică

      Defendant: Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală — Direcția Generală de Soluționare a Contestațiilor

      Question referred

   If a vendor has been reclassified as a taxable person for VAT purposes and the consideration for (price of) the supply of the immovable property has been determined by the parties, without any reference to VAT, must Articles 73 and 78 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that the taxable amount is:

               (a)

               the consideration for (price of) the supply of the property determined by the parties, less the rate of VAT, or

               (b)

               the consideration for (price of) the supply of the property agreed by the parties?

      (1)  Council Directive of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).


title: Case C-292/13 P: Appeal brought on 27 May 2013 by Fabryka Łożysk Tocznych-Kraśnik S.A. against the judgment delivered by the General Court on 22 March 2013 in Case T-571/10 Fabryka Łożysk Tocznych-Kraśnik S.A. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) — Impexmetal

text:
               27.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 215/11

         Appeal brought on 27 May 2013 by Fabryka Łożysk Tocznych-Kraśnik S.A. against the judgment delivered by the General Court on 22 March 2013 in Case T-571/10 Fabryka Łożysk Tocznych-Kraśnik S.A. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) — Impexmetal
   (Case C-292/13 P)
   2013/C 215/14
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Appellant: Fabryka Łożysk Tocznych-Kraśnik S.A. (represented by: P. Borowski, adwokat)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Impexmetal S.A.

      Form of order sought

               —

               set aside the judgment in its entirety and uphold the application of 16 December 2010 in its entirety by annulling the decision of 6 October 2010 of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market;

               —

               in the event that this head of claim is not upheld, set aside the judgment in its entirety and refer the present case back to the General Court for reconsideration;

               —

               order the other parties to the proceedings to pay the costs, including the costs incurred by the appellant in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal and the Opposition Division of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market, and those incurred in the proceedings before the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant claims that the General Court breached Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 by applying that provision to factual circumstances not covered by it.
   In the view of the appellant, the erroneous application of that provision is attributable to the General Court’s incorrect assumption that the appellant’s mark is similar to the older Community figurative mark of the intervener and that there is for that reason a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public. The General Court, it submits, failed to take account of the following facts:

               —

               the similarity between the marks does not justify the assertion that this might be the source of a likelihood of confusion;

               —

               the appellant’s mark is a part of its commercial name and this name has been used long before the application for registration;

               —

               that mark is a historically well-founded designation of the appellant;

               —

               the marks in issue have for a long time co-existed peacefully on one and the same market.


               29.5.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 146/5

         Action brought on 18 March 2004 by Railion Deutschland AG against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-109/04)
   (2004/C 146/06)
   Language of the case: German
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 18 March 2004 by Raillion Deutschland AG, Mainz (Germany), represented by H. Johlen, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Decision of 12 December 2003 C(2993)4660/F noting that a remission of import duties was not justified in a particular case;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The applicant is an undertaking engaged in the transport of goods by rail. The complaint is against the Commission decision refusing an application by the Federal Republic of Germany for authority to allow a remission of customs debt in favour of the applicant. The liability to pay the customs debt arose because the applicant was alleged to have transported alcohol declared as paint from the Bremen free zone to the Hamburg free zone by rail. There was nothing to indicate to the applicant that the declaration was false. After the goods reached Hamburg, they were properly transported to their final destination in the Czech Republic.
   The applicant claims inter alia that the decision failed to satisfy the essential procedural requirement of the right to be heard. It is true that the applicant was given a formal opportunity to state its position. However the right to be heard also requires that the arguments of the parties be considered; in its decision refusing the application the defendant did not deal with the arguments submitted. The Commission failed to have regard to the points made in relation to the different risks incurred by a rail freight company and a shipping company in a free zone. The Commission's decision was based on the premise that as a rail freight company the applicant would be dealt with in exactly the same way as a shipping company.
   The applicant also claims that the decision infringes Article 239 of the Community Customs Code. The decision denies the existence of ‘special circumstances’ on grounds that are irrelevant or are based on facts that are not fully established. Because of the simplification of rail transport procedures, the applicant was exposed to greater risk of deception by fraud in relation to the goods transported. It could not eliminate or control that risk on its own. In particular, it was impossible in practice to inspect the container.
   Lastly, the applicant claims that when making an equitable decision under Article 239 of the Community Customs Code it was necessary to take into account the fact that no financial loss was incurred by the European Communities and that at no stage was this threatened, as the alcohol was destined for the Czech market and was also delivered there.


title: Case C-225/03: Action brought on 22 May 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
19.7.2003                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 171/17
       designated by the Flemish Region and is incomplete.                   Produttori Olivicoli Laziali (APOL) and Associazione Italiana
       Finally, the report on the Flemish Region does not                    Produttori Olivicoli (AIPO), represented by Emilio Cappelli,
       reproduce all the documents and information required by               Paolo De Caterini and Andrea Bandini, of the Rome Bar.
       Article 10 in conjunction with Annex V to the directive.
                                                                             The appellants claim that the Court should:
—      The Walloon Region has infringed Articles 10(2) and 12
       of the directive in that the procedure of defining waters             —     set aside the judgment of Court of First Instance (Second
       and subsequently designating vulnerable zones covers                        Chamber) of 6 March 2003 in Joined Cases T-61/00 and
       only a part of its territory and was finished belatedly and                 T-62/00.
       the designation of vulnerable zones remains insufficient
       to date. In addition, the competent Walloon authority did
       not take into account the pollution of coastal and marine
       waters when identifying waters affected by pollution and              Pleas in law and main arguments
       designating vulnerable zones, in breach of Article 3 of
       the directive. It also infringed Article 5 of the directive,
                                                                             The appellants allege that the judgment of the Court of First
       since after it designated two vulnerable zones in its
                                                                             Instance is vitiated on the following grounds:
       territory the Walloon Region should have established
       action programmes within the prescribed period, whereas
                                                                             —     erroneous interpretation and misapplication of the prin-
       those programmes have not yet been adopted to date.
                                                                                ciple of force majeure;
                                                                             —     erroneous interpretation and misapplication of the prin-
( 1) Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning                   ciple of proportionality and of Articles 9(1) and 17(2)(b)
     the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from            of Regulation No 355/77; inadequate reasoning inasmuch
     agricultural sources (OJ L 375 of 21.12.1991, p. 1).                          as it was manifestly illogical and contradictory;
                                                                             —     breach of the rights of the rights of the defence for failure
                                                                                to fulfil the obligation to carry out an inquiry;
                                                                             —     failure to rule on whether a measure of inquiry was
                                                                                appropriate.
Appeal brought on 21 May 2003 by Associazione Produt-
tori Olivicoli Laziali (APOL) and Associazione Italiana                      Action brought on 22 May 2003 by the Commission of
Produttori Olivicoli (AIPO) against the judgment deliver-                     the European Communities against the French Republic
ed on 6 March 2003 by the First Chamber of the Court of
First Instance of the European Communities in Joined                                                   (Case C-225/03)
Cases T-61/00 and T-62/00 Associazione Produttori Oli-
vicoli Laziali (APOL) and Associazione Italiana Produttori
                  Olivicoli (AIPO) v Commission                                                        (2003/C 171/24)
                          (Case C-222/03 P)                                  An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                             Court of Justice of the European Communities on 22 May
                                                                             2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                             represented by L. Ström and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents,
                           (2003/C 171/23)                                   with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                             The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                             the Court should:
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 6 March 2003                     1.    declare that by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations
by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                         and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
European Communities in Joined Cases T-61/00 and T-62/                             Directive 98/79/EC of the European Parliament and of
00 Associazione Produttori Olivicoli Laziali (APOL) and                            the Council of 27 October 1998 on in vitro diagnostic
Associazione Italiana Produttori Olivicoli (AIPO) v Com-                           medical devices ( 1) or, in any event, by failing to notify
mission was brought before the Court of Justice of the                             the Commission of such provisions, the French Republic
European Communities on 21 May 2003 by Associazione                                has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
 ---pagebreak--- C 171/18               EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                         19.7.2003
2.    order the French Republic to pay the costs.                       2.    Does the fact that under the legislation of that Member
                                                                              State the person has the option of being voluntarily
                                                                              insured in respect of a number of branches of social
                                                                              security, without such voluntary insurance being con-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               ditional on his remaining resident in that Member State,
                                                                              have any bearing on the answer to Question 1?
Directive 98/79/EC establishes harmonised rules applicable to
the characteristics and authorisation procedures for in vitro           If the answer to the Question 1 is in the negative, the following
diagnostic medical devices in order to ensure their free                question is referred in the alternative:
movement under the best safety conditions. Article 22 of the
directive provides that Member States are to adopt the laws,            3.    In a situation such as that described above, is Article 39
regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply                 EC to be interpreted as meaning that the replacement
with that directive not later than 7 December 1999 and that                   of compulsory insurance with voluntary insurance is
they are immediately to inform the Commission thereof. The                    incompatible therewith where the reason for the termin-
Commission received from the French authorities Order                         ation of the compulsory insurance is the introduction of
No 2001-198 of 1 March 2001 which contains the legal                          a residence requirement?
provisions necessary to transpose the directive. However, it is
clear from various letters from those authorities that the              (1 ) OJ 1971, L 149, p. 2.
implementing decrees have still to be adopted and published
before certain provisions of the order become applicable. Since
the Commission has not received any information from which
it could conclude that those decrees have been adopted, it
considers that the French Republic has not yet taken all the
measures necessary to transpose the directive or, in any event,
has not communicated those measures to the Commission.                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Korkein oikeus
                                                                        by order of that Court of 23 May 2003 in the case of The
                                                                        Gillette Company and Gillette Group Finland Oy against
( 1) OJ L 331, 7.12.1998, p. 1.
                                                                                LA-Laboratories Ltd Oy
                                                                                (Case C-228/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 171/26)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Rechtbank
Amsterdam by judgment of that Court of 21 May 2003 in                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
the case of A.J. Van Pommeren-Bourgondiën against Raad                  European Communities by order of the Korkein oikeus
        van Bestuur van de Sociale Verzekeringsbank                     (Supreme Court) of 23 May 2003, received at the Court
                                                                        Registry on 26 May 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case
                                                                        of The Gillette Company and Gillette Group Finland Oy against
                         (Case C-227/03)                                LA-Laboratories Ltd Oy on the following questions:
                         (2003/C 171/25)                                When applying Article 6(1)(c) of the First Council Directive
                                                                        89/104/EEC ( 1) to approximate the laws of the Member States
                                                                        relating to trade marks:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  (1) What are the criteria
European Communities by judgment of the Rechtbank Amster-
dam (District Court, Amsterdam) of 21 May 2003, received at                   (a)   on the basis of which the question of regarding a
the Court Registry on 26 May 2003, for a preliminary ruling                         product as a spare part or accessory is to be decided,
in the case of A.J. Van Pommeren-Bourgondiën against Raad                           and
van Bestuur van de Sociale Verzekeringsbank on the following
questions:                                                                    (b) on the basis of which those products to be regarded
                                                                                as other than spare parts and accessories which can
1.    Does Article 13(2)(f) of Regulation No 1408/71 ( 1) pre-                      also fall within the scope of the said subparagraph
      clude legislation of a Member State under which a person                      are to be determined?
      who has ceased all occupational activity in its territory
      remains insured under that legislation only if he continues       (2) Is the permissibility of the use of a third party’s trade
      to reside there, whilst that person remains insured under               mark to be assessed differently, depending on whether
      the legislation of that Member State in respect of certain              the product is like a spare part or accessory or whether it
      other branches of social security irrespective of his place             is a product which can fall within the scope of the said
      of residence?                                                           subparagraph on another basis?


title: Case T-239/13: Order of the General Court of 5 June 2014  — Atmeh v OHIM — Fretier (MONTALE MTL MONTALE Dezign) (Community trade mark — Application for a declaration of invalidity — Withdrawal of the application — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               4.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 253/29

         Order of the General Court of 5 June 2014 — Atmeh v OHIM — Fretier (MONTALE MTL MONTALE Dezign)
   (Case T-239/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for a declaration of invalidity - Withdrawal of the application - No need to adjudicate))
   2014/C 253/42
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Ammar Atmeh (Diera-Dubai, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: A. Berthet, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Sylvie Fretier (Paris, France) (represented by: T. Cuche, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 14 February 2013 (Joined Cases R 1482/2011-4 and R 1571/2011-4) relating to invalidity proceedings between Ammar Atmeh and Sylvie Fretier.

      Operative part of the order

               1)

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

               2)

               The applicant and the intervener shall each bear their own costs and each shall pay one half of the costs incurred by the defendant.

      (1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.


title: Case C-234/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Vestre Landsret by order of 16 June 1999 in the case of Niels Nygård v Svineafgiftsfonden

text:
28.8.1999               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 246/15
     Denmark [1988] ECR 4607), preclude a national system                   — part of the revenue generated by the levy is allocated to
     under which criminal charges may be brought against a                       activities which, in view of their nature and immediate
     person who, contrary to certain national rules on the                       objectives, concern primary production of pigs in the
     packaging of beer and soft drinks, has marketed imported                    Member State, and thus also benefit exported pigs,
     canned cola in the metal packaging at issue in this case?                   whereas another part of the revenue generated by the
                                                                                levy is allocated to activities which, in view of their
                                                                                nature and immediate objectives, concern only slaugh-
(1) OJ 1994 L 365, p. 10.                                                        tering and further processing in the Member State and
                                                                                the sale on the domestic and export markets of
                                                                                nationally processed derivatives of the primary
                                                                                product, and thus do not benefit exported pigs?
                                                                        II. If Question I is answered in the affirmative: does it make
                                                                            any difference to the answer that the levy scheme was,
                                                                            pursuant to Article 95(3) (Presumably Article 93(3)) of the
                                                                            EC Treaty, notified to and approved by the EU Commission
                                                                            as being lawful State aid?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Vestre Landsret
by order of 16 June 1999 in the case of Niels Nygård v
                        Svineafgiftsfonden
                         (Case C-234/99)
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
                         (1999/C 246/31)                                Justice (England and Wales), Queen’s Bench Division,
                                                                        Divisional Court, by order of that Court of 18 December
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  1998, in the case of The Queen against Secretary of State
European Communities by order of 16 June 1999 by the                    for the Home Department, Ex parte: Eleanora Ivanova
Vestre Landsret (Western Regional Court), which was received                                         Kondova
at the Court Registry on 21 June 1999, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of Niels Nygard v Svineafgiftsfonden on the                                          (Case C-235/99)
following questions:
                                                                                (1999/C 246/32)
I.   Must Articles 9, 12 and 16 of the EC Treaty or Article 95
     of the EC Treaty be construed as meaning that those
     provisions, or that provision, preclude a public body in a         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     Member State from charging a production levy in respect            European Communities by an order of the High Court of
     of pigs produced in the Member State in question and               Justice (England and Wales), Queen’s Bench Division, Div-
     exported live to another Member State, in the case where:          isional Court, of 18 December 1998, which was received at
                                                                        the Court Registry on 22 June 1999, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                        in the case of The Queen against Secretary of State for the
     — a similar levy is charged for each pig produced in the           Home Department, Ex parte: Eleanora Ivanova Kondova, on
         Member State in question and sold for slaughter on the         the following questions:
         domestic market;
                                                                        1. Does Article 45 of the Association Agreement between the
     — the detailed rules for calculating the levy do not give              EEC and the Republic of Bulgaria (‘the Agreement’: OJ
         rise to discrimination between the two product groups,             1993 L 358, p.1) (1) confer rights of establishment upon a
         since, when the different ‘weight categories’ are being            Bulgarian national who, under national immigration law,
         determined for slaughtered and live pigs, it can be                is treated as having entered the territory of that Member
         assumed that compensation is provided for the average              State illegally?
         difference between ‘carcass weight’ and ‘live weight’,
         but                                                            2. If the answer to the first question is ‘yes’, does Article 45
                                                                            of the Agreement have direct effect within the national
     — the levy in respect of pigs sold for slaughter on the                legal systems of Member States, notwithstanding the
         domestic market becomes payable when they are                      provisions of Article 59 of the Agreement?
         delivered for slaughter, whereas the levy in respect of
         pigs exported live becomes payable at the time of              3. If the answer to the second question is ‘yes’,
         export;
                                                                            i) to what extent may a Member State apply its laws and
                                                                                regulations regarding entry and stay, work, labour
     — in the first case, the levy is payable by the producer,                   conditions and establishment of natural persons, and
         whereas in the second case it is payable by the exporter,               supply of services, to persons invoking Article 45 of the
         irrespective of whether he is also the producer, and;                   Agreement, without violating the proviso contained in
                                                                                the penultimate sentence of Article 59(1) of the
     — the levy is not charged in respect of pigs sold live on                   Agreement and, inter alia, the principle of pro-
         the domestic market, and;                                               portionality?


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 May 2000 in Case C-301/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrĳfsleven): KVS International BV v Minister van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserĳ (Agriculture — Animal health in the veterinary sector in intra-Community trade in and imports of deep-frozen semen of domestic animals of the bovine species — Certification of bovine semen intended for export to a Member State — Directives 88/407/EEC and 93/60/EEC — Scope ratione temporis)

text:
C 233/6                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          12.8.2000
assurance and amending Directives 73/239/EEC and                           laying down detailed rules governing imports of ‘baby-beef’
88/357/EEC (Third Non-life Insurance Directive) (OJ 1992                   originating in the Republics of Croatia and Slovenia and the
L 228, p. 1) and under the EC Treaty — the Court (Sixth                    Yugoslav Republics of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia and
Chamber), composed of: J.C. Moitinho de Almeida (Rappor-                   Montenegro (OJ 1992 L 89, p. 26) — the Court (Second
teur), President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet,             Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), President
G. Hirsch and F. Macken, Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate General;              of the Chamber, G. Hirsch and V. Skouris, Judges; D. Ruiz-
D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Re-                  Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
gistrar, has given a judgment on 18 May 2000, in which it:                 given a judgment on 18 May 2000, in which it has ruled:
1.    Declares that, by adopting and maintaining in force Article 2        Article 7 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 545/92 of 3 February
      of the law of 9 July 1975 on the control of insurance                1992 concerning the arrangements applicable to the import into the
      undertakings, as amended by the Royal Decree of 12 August            Community of products originating in the Republics of Croatia
      1994, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its                and Slovenia and the Yugoslav Republics of Bosnia-Herzegovina,
      obligations under Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June             Macedonia and Montenegro (OJ 1992 L 63, p. 1) and Commission
      1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administra-        Regulation (EEC) No 859/92 of 3 April 1992 laying down detailed
      tive provisions relating to direct insurance other than life         rules governing imports of ‘baby-beef’ originating in the Republics of
      assurance and amending Directives 73/239/EEC and                     Croatia and Slovenia and the Yugoslav Republics of Bosnia-
      88/357/EEC (Third Non-life Insurance Directive);                     Herzegovina, Macedonia and Montenegro (OJ 1992 L 89, p. 26)
                                                                           must be interpreted as meaning that the importation into the
2.    Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.                      Community in September and October 1992 of consignments of
                                                                           ‘baby-beef’ originating in and coming from the former Yugoslav
(1) OJ C 258 of 15.8.1998.                                                 Republic of Macedonia with certificates of origin issued by the
                                                                           Yugoslav body which was the competent authority prior to the
                                                                           denunciation by the Community of the EEC-Yugoslavia Cooperation
                                                                           Agreement was not capable of benefiting from the arrangements for
                                                                           reduced import levies provided for in Article 7 of Regulation
                                                                           No 545/92 even though a new competent body had not been
                                                                           designated for the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia at the
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     time the import operations took place.
                        (Second Chamber)                                   (1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.
                          of 18 May 2000
in Case C-230/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunale Civile e Penale di Treviso): Amministrazio-
     ne delle Finanze dello Stato v Schiavon Silvano (1)                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Common commercial policy — Regulation No 545/92 and                                                 (Fifth Chamber)
Regulation No 859/92 — Imports into the Community of
‘baby-beef’ originating in the former Yugoslav Republic of                                           of 18 May 2000
Macedonia — Body competent to issue certificates of origin)
                                                                           in Case C-301/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                          (2000/C 233/11)                                  the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven): KVS
                                                                           International BV v Minister van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer
                                                                                en Visserij (1)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                           (Agriculture — Animal health in the veterinary sector in
                                                                           intra-Community trade in and imports of deep-frozen semen
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     of domestic animals of the bovine species — Certification of
                   in the European Court Reports)                          bovine semen intended for export to a Member State —
                                                                           Directives 88/407/EEC and 93/60/EEC — Scope ratione
In Case C-230/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                                            temporis)
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunale Civile
e Penale di Treviso (District Court, Treviso), Italy, for a                                          (2000/C 233/12)
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato and
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
Schiavon Silvano, an insolvent firm, on the interpretation of
Council Regulation (EEC) No 545/92 of 3 February 1992
concerning the arrangements applicable to the import into the              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Community of products originating in the Republics of                                         in the European Court Reports)
Croatia and Slovenia and the Yugoslav Republics of Bosnia-
Herzegovina, Macedonia and Montenegro (OJ 1992 L 63, p. 1)                 In Case C-301/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
and Commission Regulation (EEC) No 859/92 of 3 April 1992                  the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the College van Beroep
 ---pagebreak--- 12.8.2000               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 233/7
voor het Bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) for a preliminary ruling in            Bellanger and C. Bergeot) — application for a declaration that,
the proceedings pending before that court between KVS                       by failing within the prescribed period to adopt, alternatively
International BV and Minister van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer                    to communicate to the Commission, the laws, regulations and
en Visserij — on the interpretation of Article 3 of Council                 administrative measures necessary in order to comply with
Directive 88/407/EEC of 14 June 1988 laying down the animal                 Council Directive 94/33/EC of 22 June 1994 on the protection
health requirements applicable to intra-Community trade in                  of young people at work (OJ 1994 L 216 p. 12), the French
and imports of deep-frozen semen of domestic animals of the                 Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty
bovine species (OJ 1988 L 194, p. 10) and paragraph 1(b) of                 and under that directive — the Court (Fourth Chamber),
Chapter I of Annex B to the same directive, both in its original            composed of: D.A.O. Edward, President of the Chamber,
version and as amended by Council Directive 93/60/EEC of                    P.J.G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur) and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; A. Sag-
30 June 1993 amending Directive 88/407/EEC and extending                    gio, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judg-
it to cover fresh bovine semen (OJ 1993 L 186, p. 28), and the              ment on 18 May 2000, in which it:
validity of the latter directive — the Court (Fifth Chamber),
composed of: L. Sevón (Rapporteur), President of the First                 1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period,
Chamber, acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber,                           the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary in
P.J.G. Kapteyn, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm and M. Wathelet,                            order to comply with Council Directive 94/33/EC of 22 June
Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator,                   1994 on the protection of young people at work, the French
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 May 2000, in                        Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty
which it has ruled:                                                               and under that directive;
Article 3(b) of Council Directive 88/407/EEC of 14 June 1988                2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
laying down the animal health requirements applicable to intra-
Community trade in and imports of deep-frozen semen of domestic
                                                                            (1) OJ C 100 of 10.4.1999.
animals of the bovine species, read in conjunction with paragraph 1(b)
of Chapter 1 of Annex B to that directive, in its original version and
as amended by Council Directive 93/60/EEC of 30 June 1993
amending Directive 88/407/EEC and extending it to cover fresh
bovine semen, must be interpreted as meaning that semen from a
bull which, before its admission to an approved semen collection
centre, belonged to a herd which was not officially brucellosis free is
precluded from intra-Community trade, if only on account of the                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
change in the health status of the herd in the period during which the
animal was kept in that herd.                                                                         of 23 May 2000
(1) OJ C 312 of 10.10.1998.                                                 in Case C-104/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                            the Oberster Gerichtshof): Johann Buchner and Others v
                                                                                Sozialversicherungsanstalt der Bauern (1)
                                                                            (Directive 79/7/EEC — Equal treatment for men and women
                                                                            in matters of social security — Early old-age pension on
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      account of incapacity for work — Pensionable age different
                                                                                according to sex)
                        (Fourth Chamber)
                                                                                (2000/C 233/14)
                          of 18 May 2000
in Case C-45/99: Commission of the European Communi-                                           (Language of the case: German)
                    ties v French Republic (1)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Failure to fulfil obligations — Failure to transpose Directive                                in the European Court Reports)
                             94/33/EC)
                                                                            In Case C-104/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                          (2000/C 233/13)
                                                                            the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Oberster
                                                                            Gerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary ruling in the proce-
                    (Language of the case: French)                          edings pending before that court between Johann Buchner and
                                                                            Others and Sozialversicherungsanstalt der Bauern — on the
                                                                            interpretation of Article 7 of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the
                   in the European Court Reports)                           principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of
                                                                            social security (OJ 1979 L 6, p. 24) — the Court, composed
In Case C-45/99: Commission of the European Communities                     of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, D.A.O. Edward and
(Agent: D. Gouloussis) v French Republic (Agents: K. Rispal-                L. Sevón, (Presidents of Chambers), P.J.G. Kapteyn, C. Gul-


title: Action brought on 12 August 1998 by Francis Panichelli against the European Parliament (Case T-131/98)

text:
24.10.98              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 327/31
Action brought on 10 August 1998 by Francis Panichelli              According to the applicant, the first ground for complaint
               against the European Parliament                      is that by not promoting him to Grade A 4, the defendant
                                                                    manifestly breached the conditions of his recruitment, and
                       (Case T-130/98)                              the rules it imposed on itself.
                         (98/C 327/54)
                                                                    The second ground is that the appointing authority failed
                (Language of the case: French)                      to draw up the applicant's staff reports, in breach of the
                                                                    aforementioned rules and principles, thus preventing the
                                                                    committee responsible for deciding on promotions from
                                                                    carrying out an objective examination of the applicant's
An action against the European Parliament was brought               file and ensuring a genuine comparison of the merits of
before the Court of First Instance of the European                  each of the members of staff concerned, thus depriving the
Communities on 10 August 1998 by Francis Panichelli,                applicant of numerous career opportunities within the
residing in Wezembeek-Oppem (Belgium), represented by               institution.
Eric Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2
Rue du Fort Rheinsheim.
                                                                    The applicant concludes that he has suffered considerable
                                                                    material loss as a result of those procedural flaws since,
                                                                    on the one hand, his remuneration is lower than what he
The applicant claims that the Court should:                         could reasonably have anticipated and, on the other, he is
                                                                    denied any further promotion from the new grade and
                                                                    step which he could have held. Ex aequo et bono, that
                                                                    loss, both material and non-material, is reasonably
Ð annul the implicit decision rejecting the request                 estimated at BEF 250 000.
    submitted by him on 11 July 1997, as a result of
    which he was not classified in Grade A 4 with effect
    from 1 January 1993, was not granted the promotion
    he requested and his staff reports for the periods
    1993Ð1994 and 1995Ð1996 were not drawn up;
                                                                    Action brought on 12 August 1998 by Francis Panichelli
Ð annul the implicit rejection on 26 January 1998 of the
                                                                                against the European Parliament
    complaint he submitted against the implicit decision
    rejecting his requests of 11 July 1997;                                                 (Case T-131/98)
                                                                                (98/C 327/55)
Ð order the defendant to pay him           the sum of BEF
    250 000, subject to amendment in       the course of the
    proceedings, by way of damages         in respect of his                        (Language of the case: French)
    aggregate material and non-material    loss;
                                                                    An action against the European Parliament was brought
Ð order the defendant to pay all the costs in any event.            before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                    Communities on 12 August 1998 by Francis Panichelli,
                                                                    residing in Wezembeek-Oppem (Belgium), represented by
                                                                    Eric Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2
                                                                    Rue du Fort Rheinsheim.
The applicant, a member of the temporary staff in Grade
A 5, had requested the reclassification of his post as Grade        The applicant claims that the Court should:
A 4 with effect from 1 January 1993 and, in the event of
refusal, written notification of the reasons why the
undertaking to that effect given by the Party of European
Socialists at the time of his recruitment was not respected         Ð annul the decision of the Bureau of the Group of
and, in the alternative, re-examination of the list of                   the Party of European Socialists terminating the
proposed promotions for 1997, which was drawn up in                      applicant's contract as a member of the temporary
breach of Article 6.1.2 of the internal rules of the party's             staff with effect from the evening of 2 October 1998,
secretariat, inter alia because no staff reports were drawn              communicated to the applicant on 2 July 1998 by a
up for the periods 1993Ð1994 and 1995Ð1996.                              letter from the President of the Party of European
 ---pagebreak--- C 327/32               EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                   24.10.98
     Socialists, Pauline Green, dated 30 June 1998 and sent        Action brought on 20 August 1998 by Elaine Spence
     by registered post on 1 July 1998;                               against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-135/98)
Ð annul the future decision rejecting the complaint                                        (98/C 327/56)
     against that decision submitted by the applicant on
     10 August 1998, in so far as that complaint is not
     allowed;                                                                     (Language of the case: French)
Ð order the defendant to pay all the costs in any event.           An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                   Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                   Instance of the European Communities on 20 August
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                1998 by Elaine Spence, residing in Wezembeek-Oppem
                                                                   (Belgium), represented by Georges Vandersanden and
                                                                   Laure Levi, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service
                                                                   in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL,
The applicant, a member of the temporary staff in Grade
                                                                   30 Rue de Cessange.
A 5, has already lodged an application (1) challenging the
Parliament's implicit decision of 11 July 1997 not to
promote him to Grade A 4 and its failure to draw up his
staff reports for the periods 1993Ð1994 and 1995Ð1996.             The applicant claims that the Court should:
By the present application, the applicant is challenging the       Ð annul the decision adopted by the appointing
decision of the Bureau of the Group of the Party of                    authority on 17 October 1997, notified to the
European Socialists of 30 June 1998, terminating his                   applicant on 23 October 1997, withdrawing a decision
contract as a member of the temporary staff with effect                of 7 August 1997 transferring the applicant and her
from the evening of 2 October 1998.                                    post to Directorate-General I Ð External Relations:
                                                                       Commercial policy and relations with North America,
                                                                       the Far East, Australia and New Zealand with effect
According to the applicant, the decision to dismiss him                from 1 September 1997 and, in so far as is necessary,
was made without duly informing the Staff Committee in                 annul the implicit decision rejecting the complaint
advance; furthermore, no reasons were given for the                    registered on 22 January 1998;
decision, which was based on an inadequate statement of
reasons. He alleges infringement of the rules in Articles 24a
and 25(2) of the Staff Regulations, which apply to                 Ð award damages provisionally set at BEF 300 000;
members of the temporary staff by virtue of Article 11(1)
of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants
(hereinafter the CEOS'), and Article 47(2)(a) of the CEOS
and Article 11 of the internal rules on the recruitment of         Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
officials and other servants adopted on 15 March 1989 by
the Bureau of the European Parliament. Furthermore, he
claims infringement of Article 11 of the European                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Convention on Human Rights and general principles of
law such as those requiring the equal treatment of
officials, respect for the rights of the defence, the
performance in good faith of agreements and the                    The applicant, an official in DG XIV of the defendant
protection of legitimate expectations, as well as the              institution, challenges the withdrawal on 17 October 1997
principle that every act of the administration must be             of the appointing authority's decision of 7 August 1997 to
based on a relevant statement of reasons.                          transfer her to DG I. That decision was based on a
                                                                   deterioration in the applicant's working conditions, which
                                                                   arose following the appointment of her last immediate
                                                                   superior, who she accused of systematic mobbing'.
Second, the applicant alleges that the appointing authority
committed a misuse of powers. In his assertion, the
contested decision dismissing him is unlawful in so far as
it is based on considerations unrelated to his aptitude and        In support of her assertions, the applicant alleges, first of
professional performance.                                          all, infringement of the principle of the protection of
                                                                   legitimate expectations. It is submitted in that respect that
                                                                   the contested decision annuls a previous decision with
(1) Case T-130/98.                                                 effect from 1 September 1997, which in practice
                                                                   constitutes a retroactive withdrawal in disregard of the
                                                                   extremely strict requirements imposed by Community
                                                                   case-law. The applicant stresses in that respect that the


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 6 December 2002 in Case T-275/02 R: D v European Investment Bank (Procedure for interim relief — Extension of probationary period — Admissibility of the main action — Urgency — None)

text:
C 44/30                  EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         22.2.2003
established in Uelzen, Germany, represented by D. Fouquet,                  Action brought on 18 November 2002 by Duarte y
Lawyer, against Commission of the European Communities                      Beltrán S.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the
(Agents: V. Kreuschitz and J.L. Buendia Sierra) — application                                   Internal Market (OHIM)
for a declaration that the Commission unlawfully failed to
examine non-notified aid granted by the Federal Republic of
Germany to nuclear power station operators — the Court                                              (Case T-353/02)
of First Instance (First Chamber, Enlarged Composition),
composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, J. Azizi. R.M. Moura
Ramos, M. Jaeger and H. Legal, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
made an order on 27 November 2002, in which it:                                                      (2003/C 44/60)
1.     Held that there was no need to give judgment in the action;
                                                                            (Language of the case: to be determined in accordance with
                                                                            Article 131(2) of the Rules of Procedure — Application in Spanish)
2.     Ordered each party to bear its own costs.
( 1) OJ C 44 of 16.2.2002.
                                                                            An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                            Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                            European Communities on 18 November 2002 by Duarte y
                                                                            Beltrán S.A. of Santander (Spain), represented by Natalia Moya
                                                                            Fernández.
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
                              INSTANCE                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
                        of 6 December 2002                                  —     annul the decision of 6 August 2002 of the Second Board
                                                                                of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                                Market (OHIM) in Case R-407/2001 and the corrigendum
     in Case T-275/02 R: D v European Investment Bank                             of 16 September 2002 thereto;
(Procedure for interim relief — Extension of probationary                   —     reject Opposition B 35073 in its entirety;
period — Admissibility of the main action — Urgency —
                                 None)
                                                                            —     uphold the claims of the applicant and direct the relevant
                                                                                Opposition Division of OHIM to proceed to register the
                           (2003/C 44/59)                                         mark in question;
                    (Language of the case: French)                          —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
In Case T-275/02 R: D, an agent of the European Investment
Bank, residing in Luxembourg, represented by J. Choucroun,                  Pleas in law and main arguments
Lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against
European Investment Bank (Agents: J.-P. Minnaert and P. Mou-
sel) — application for suspension of operation of the decisions
of the European Investment Bank first extending the applicant’s             Applicant for the Com-         Duarte y Beltrán S.A.
period of probation and second dismissing him — the                         munity trade mark:
President of the Court of First Instance has made an order on
6 December 2002, in which he:                                               Community trade mark           INTEA — application no 99 747
                                                                            applied for:                   for certain goods in classes 3, 16
                                                                                and 21
1.     Dismisses the application for interim measures;
2.     Orders that costs are reserved.                                      Proprietor of the trade        MIRATO S.p.A.
                                                                            mark or sign invoked in
                                                                            the opposition pro-
                                                                            cedure:


title: Case T-627/16: Action brought on 31 August 2016 — Czech Republic v Commission

text:
               24.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/47

         Action brought on 31 August 2016 — Czech Republic v Commission
   (Case T-627/16)
   (2016/C 392/61)
   Language of the case: Czech

      Parties

      Applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Pavliš and J. Vláčil, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/1059 of 20 June 2016 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (notified under document C(2016) 3753) (‘the contested decision’) in so far as it excludes expenditure incurred by the Czech Republic in connection with the single area payment (SAPS) in a total amount of EUR 84 272,83, in so far as it excludes expenditure incurred by the Czech Republic in connection with investment in the wine sector in a total amount of EUR 636 516,20, and in so far as it excludes expenditure incurred by the Czech Republic in connection with cross-compliance conditions in a total amount of EUR 29 485 612,55;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies in relation to the single area payment scheme (SAPS) on a single plea in law, alleging breach of Article 52(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy. The Commission decided to exclude expenditure from EU financing, although there had been no breach of EU or national law.
   In relation to investment in the wine sector, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging breach of Article 52(1) of Regulation No 1306/2013. The Commission decided to exclude expenditure from EU financing, although there had been no breach of EU or national law.
   In relation to cross-compliance conditions, the applicant relies on two pleas in law:

               —

               The first plea in law alleges breach of Article 52(1) of Regulation No 1306/2013. The Commission decided to exclude expenditure from EU financing, although there had been no breach of EU or national law.

               —

               In the alternative, the applicant relies on the second plea in law, alleging breach of Article 52(2) of Regulation No 1306/2013. Even if the complaints contested in the first plea in law constituted a breach of EU law (quod non), the Commission incorrectly assessed the seriousness of that breach and the financial damage to the EU.