title: Case T-388/02: Action brought on 23 December 2002 by Kronoply GmbH & Co. KG and Kronotex GmbH & Co. KG against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 44/40               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                        22.2.2003
Action brought on 19 December 2002 by Marta Andreas-                      —     Breach of Article 50 of the Staff Regulations by using the
en against the Commission of the European Communities                           applicant’s transfer as a punitive measure, and
                                                                          —     Breach of Article 7 of the Staff Regulations through the
                        (Case T-385/02)                                         adoption of a disproportionate and unnecessary measure,
                                                                                resulting in the applicant’s appointment to a post that is
                                                                                not suited to her category and grade.
                        (2003/C 44/75)
                  (Language of the case: English)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                Action brought on 23 December 2002 by Kronoply
European Communities on 19 December 2002 by Marta                         GmbH & Co. KG and Kronotex GmbH & Co. KG against
Andreasen, Brussels, Belgium, represented by Ian S. Forrester,                   the Commission of the European Communities
QC.
                                                                                (Case T-388/02)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (2003/C 44/76)
—     annul the implied decision of the Commission rejecting
      the applicant’s appeal against her removal from the post                               (Language of the case: German)
      of Accounting Officer
—     annul the implied decision of the Commission rejecting
      the applicant’s appeal against her transfer to the post of
      Principal Adviser                                                   An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 23 December 2002 by Kronoply
—     award her pecuniary damages for an amount of money                  GmbH & Co. KG and Kronotex GmbH & Co. KG, Heiligengra-
      to be fixed by the Court, plus interest at 5 % or at such           be, Germany, represented by R. Nierer, Rechtsanwalt.
      other rate as may be fixed by the Court
—     award her the costs of the present action.                          The applicants claim that the Court should:
                                                                          —     annul the Commission’s decision of 19 June 2002 (State
                                                                                Aid No N 240/2002) not to raise any objection to the
                                                                                Federal Republic of Germany granting State aid to
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 Zellstoff Stendal GmbH;
                                                                          —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
The purpose of the present action is to challenge the Decision
to remove the applicant from office as Accounting Officer and
Bugdet Execution Director in Directorate General Budget and
to transfer her to the position of principal Adviser in Director-
ate General Personnel and Administration.                                 Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of her conclusions, the applicant submits:                     The applicants produce timber-based materials from freshly
                                                                          felled pine, including [...] oriented structural boards. Their
                                                                          action is brought against the Commission’s decision to raise
—     Breach of the principle of good administration. Failure to          no objection to the granting of a non-repayable subsidy
      state reasons for the removal in question, and violation            of EUR 109,161 million and an investment allowance of
      of the Commission’s duty of adequate reasoning for                  EUR 165,515 million to Zellstoff Stendal GmbH for the
      adoption of a decision having legal effect.                         construction of a cellulose factory and the establishment of a
 ---pagebreak--- 22.2.2003                EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 44/41
wood procurement undertaking and a logistics undertaking in               Action brought on 24 December 2002 by Sergio Sandini
Arneburg bei Stendal in the Land Sachsen-Anhalt, Germany,                 against the Court of Justice of the European Communities
and also against the provision of an 80 % surety for a loan of
EUR 464,550 million.
                                                                                (Case T-389/02)
The applicants claim that the Commission did not fully adhere
to the guidelines and general regulations. It failed to examine                                    (2003/C 44/77)
the sectoral effects of the plans on wood as a resource
and adopted too wide a procurement radius. That wide
procurement radius leads in their submission to higher costs                                 (Language of the case: French)
and thus the unprofitability of the undertaking, whereas, if a
smaller procurement radius were used, forest resources would
not be sufficient to supply all wood-processing undertakings
in the region.
                                                                          An action against the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                          Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance
The Commission failed to take account of the fact that the aid            of the European Communities on 24 December 2002 by
beneficiary’s own share was less than the necessary 25 %.                 Sergio Sandini, residing in Ehlange (Luxembourg), represented
                                                                          by Juan Ramon Iturriagagoitia and Karine Delvolvé, lawyers.
The Commission calculated the number of indirectly created
jobs at too high a figure, so that, instead of the factor of 1,5, a       The applicant claims that the Court should:
factor of 1,25 should have been used. The maximum permiss-
ible intensity of aid was therefore only 26,25 %.
                                                                          —     annul the decision of the Court of Justice given on
                                                                                24 September 2002 and concerning Complaint 2/02-
                                                                                R(e) lodged by the applicant on 25 January 2002 against
In addition, the aid proportion of a State guarantee for a loan                 the decision of 25 October 2001;
was calculated too low, so that, on a correct calculation, there
was an aid intensity of 33,31 %, which even exceeded the
maximum aid intensity approved by the Commission of                       —     order the defendant to pay the applicant, as compensation
31,5 %.                                                                         for the damage that he has suffered and will in future
                                                                                suffer, the sum of EUR 350 000, subject to all necessary
                                                                                reservations, together with default interest at the rate of
                                                                                10 % per annum from 7 October 1999 until the date of
Council Regulation (EC) No 659/99 of 22 March 1999 laying
                                                                                payment;
down detailed rules for the application of Article 88 EC ( 1) was
infringed, since no formal investigation procedure was opened,
although the Commission had cause for concern. The appli-                 —     order the defendant to pay all the costs.
cants were thereby hindered in the exercise of their procedural
rights and limited in their right to a hearing.
Since the regional aid guidelines and the provisions of the               Pleas in law and main arguments
multisectoral regional aid framework were not complied with,
none of the exceptions in Article 87(3)(a) and (c) of the EC
Treaty can apply.
                                                                          The applicant, an official of the Court of Justice, challenges
                                                                          that institution’s refusal to compensate him for the damage
                                                                          suffered as a result of his occupational disease, which has
The Commission further infringed Article 2, Article 3(1)(i),              already been recognised by decision of the appointing auth-
Article 6, and the third indent of Article 174(1) of the EC               ority of 31 May 2001, adopted under Article 73 of the Staff
Treaty, as it failed to take account of the environmental impact          Regulations, and on the basis of which a sum was paid to him.
when making its decisions. In the applicants’ submission, the
plans being supported would lead to overfelling in order to
meet requirements.
                                                                          The pleas relied on in support of this application are similar to
                                                                          those in Case T 255/02 H v Court of Justice (OJ C 274 of
( 1) OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1.                                                  9.11.2002, p. 26).


title: Case C-509/16 P: Appeal brought on 26 September 2016 by Francisco Javier Rosa Rodríguez against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) made on 20 July 2016 in Case T-358/16 Rosa Rodríguez v Consejería de Educación de la Junta de Andalucía

text:
               23.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/3

         Appeal brought on 26 September 2016 by Francisco Javier Rosa Rodríguez against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) made on 20 July 2016 in Case T-358/16 Rosa Rodríguez v Consejería de Educación de la Junta de Andalucía

   (Case C-509/16 P)
   (2017/C 022/05)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Francisco Javier Rosa Rodríguez (represented by: J. Velasco Velasco, abogado)

      Other party to the proceedings: Consejería de Educación de la Junta de Andalucía
   By order of 8 December 2016, the Court of Justice (Ninth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered Mr Rosa Rodríguez to bear his own costs.


title: Notice of an open Competition

text:
C 71/16             EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                20.3.2002
                                                   COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                NOTICE OF AN OPEN COMPETITION
                                                               (2002/C 71/08)
           The Court of Justice of the European Communities is publishing in the Official Journal of the European
           Communities C 71 A of 20 March 2002 the following open competition:
           Finnish edition
           CJ/LA/16 (Lawyer-linguists of Finnish mother-tongue)
           To obtain this Official Journal please contact the Personnel Division of the Court of Justice of the European
           Communities, L-2925 Luxembourg.
           The final date for receipt of applications is 25 April 2002.
                                                                CORRIGENDA
                             Corrigendum to holidays in 2002  Member States of the European Union
                                   (Official Journal of the European Communities C 63 of 12 March 2002)
                                                                (2002/C 71/09)
           On page 27:
           For:
                                                        B   DK     D   GR      E     F    IRL   I    L NL  AT    P    FI  SE   UK
                      Ascension Day:            9.5.    ×     ×     ×                ×                × ×    ×         ×   ×    ×
        Day following Ascension Day:           10.5.     ×                                                                      ×,
           read:
                                                        B   DK     D   GR      E     F    IRL   I    L NL  AT    P    FI  SE   UK
                      Ascension Day:            9.5.    ×     ×     ×                ×                × ×    ×         ×   ×
        Day following Ascension Day:           10.5.   ×.


title: Case C-569/10: Action brought on 3 December 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

text:
               12.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/6

         Action brought on 3 December 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-569/10)
   2011/C 46/10
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: K. Herrmann, Agent)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by not adopting the measures necessary to ensure that access to activities relating to the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons should be free of all discrimination as between interested undertakings and that the authorisations to carry out those activities should be allocated in accordance with a procedure under which all interested undertakings are able to submit applications and in accordance with criteria which are published in the Official Journal of the European Union prior to the beginning of the period in which applications must be submitted, the Republic of Poland has failed to comply with its obligations under Articles 2(2), 3(1) and 5(1) and (2) of Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons; (1)

               —

               order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission raises three heads of complaint alleging failure on the part of the Republic of Poland to comply with the provisions of Directive 94/22/EC.
   First, in the view of the Commission, the Polish legislation on ‘Geological Work and Mining’ (Prawo geologiczne i górnicze) and the implementing regulations giving effect to that legislation set out requirements with which any interested undertaking must comply at the time when it applies for an authorisation for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons and which place a number of undertakings already operating within Polish territory in a more favourable position than other undertakings, thereby infringing the principle of equal access to those activities.
   Second, the Polish legislation does not subject the whole of the procedure governing the granting of authorisation for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons to the adjudication procedure required pursuant to Article 3(2) of Directive 94/22/EC. Polish law makes the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons subject to the acquisition of a mining permit and a concession. The acquisition of a mining permit alone is, as a rule, preceded by a prior adjudication procedure, subject, however, to the reservation of a two-year right of priority for an undertaking which has identified and documented a deposit of hydrocarbons and has prepared geological documentation with the precision required for the purpose of obtaining a concession to extract such hydrocarbons.
   Third, in the view of the Commission, the adjudication of applications submitted for the purpose of acquiring an authorisation for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons is not conducted exclusively on the basis of the criteria set out in Article 5(1) of Directive 94/22/EC. Furthermore, not all of the criteria governing the appraisal of an application are generally accessible, that is to say, published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

      (1)  OJ 1994 L 164, p. 3.


title: Case T-119/16: Action brought on 22 March 2016 — Topera v EUIPO (RHYTHMVIEW)

text:
               6.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 200/26

         Action brought on 22 March 2016 — Topera v EUIPO (RHYTHMVIEW)
   (Case T-119/16)
   (2016/C 200/38)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Topera, Inc. (Abbott Park, Illinois, United States) (represented by: H. Sheraton, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: EU mark ‘RHYTHMVIEW’ — Application for registration No 13 374 483

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 January 2016 in Case R 1368/2015-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO and any intervener to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

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


title: Case C-43/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece) lodged on 25 January 2010 — Nomarkhiaki Aftodiikisi Aitoloakarnanias and Others, Elliniki Etairia gia tin Prostasia tou Perivallontos kai tis Politistikis Klironomias and Others and Pagkosmio Tamio gia ti Fisi — WWF Ellas v Ipourgos Perivallontos, Khorotaxias kai Dimosion Ergon and Others

text:
               17.4.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 100/20

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece) lodged on 25 January 2010 — Nomarkhiaki Aftodiikisi Aitoloakarnanias and Others, Elliniki Etairia gia tin Prostasia tou Perivallontos kai tis Politistikis Klironomias and Others and Pagkosmio Tamio gia ti Fisi — WWF Ellas v Ipourgos Perivallontos, Khorotaxias kai Dimosion Ergon and Others
   (Case C-43/10)
   2010/C 100/32
   Language of the case: Greek

      Referring court

   Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Council of State)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Nomarkhiaki Aftodiikisi Aitoloakarnanias (Prefectural Authority of Aitoloakarnania) and Others, Elliniki Etairia gia tin Prostasia tou Perivallontos kai tis Politistikis Klironomias (Hellenic Society for the Protection of the Environment and Cultural Heritage) and Others and Pagkosmio Tamio gia ti Fisi — WWF Ellas (World Wide Fund for Nature — WWF Greece)

      Defendants: Ipourgos Perivallontos, Khorotaxias kai Dimosion Ergon (Minister for the Environment, Regional Planning and Public Works) and Others

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 13(6) of Directive 2000/60/EC establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (OJ 2000 L 327, p. 1) merely set an ultimate temporal limit (22 December 2009) for the drawing up of management plans for water resources or does it lay down, up until that date, a special time-limit for transposition of the relevant provisions of Articles 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 13 and 15 of that directive?
               Should the Court of Justice of the European Communities hold that the foregoing provision of the directive merely sets an ultimate temporal limit for the drawing up of management plans for water resources, the following question must additionally be referred for a preliminary ruling:

               2.

               Is national legislation that permits the transfer of water from a particular river basin to another river basin, without the plans having yet been drawn up for the river basin districts within which the river basins from and towards which water will be transferred are located, consistent with Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 13 and 15 of Directive 2000/60, given that, under Article 2(15) of that directive, the main unit for management of a river basin is the river basin district to which it belongs?
               Should the preceding question be answered in the affirmative, the following question must additionally be referred for a preliminary ruling:

               3.

               For the purpose of Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 13 and 15 of Directive 2000/60, is the transfer of water from a river basin district to a neighbouring river basin district permitted? Should the answer be in the affirmative, can the purpose of that transfer be only to meet water-supply needs or can irrigation and power generation also be served? Is it in any event a requirement, for the purpose of those provisions of the directive, that the administrative authorities have decided, stating reasons and on the basis of the necessary scientific study, that the receiving river basin district cannot meet with its own water resources the needs which it has in respect of water supply, irrigation and so forth?
               Should the Court of Justice of the European Communities hold, as regards Question 1, that Article 13(6) of Directive 2000/60 does not merely set an ultimate temporal limit (22 December 2009) for the drawing up of management plans for water resources, but lays down a special time-limit for transposition of the relevant provisions of Articles 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 13 and 15 of that directive, the following question must additionally be referred for a preliminary ruling:

               4.

               Does national legislation, enacted within that special time-limit for transposition, that permits the transfer of water from a particular river basin to another river basin, without the plans having yet been drawn up for the river basin districts within which the river basins from and towards which water will be transferred are located, place, without more, the practical effect of that directive at risk, or is it necessary, in order to assess whether the practical effect of the directive is placed at risk, to take account of criteria such as the scale of the interventions provided for and the objectives of the transfer of the water?

               5.

               Is a legislative provision which is enacted by a national parliament and which approves river basin management plans without the relevant national rules providing for a public consultation stage in the procedure before the national parliament, and without it being apparent from the case-file that that the consultation procedure before the administrative authorities that is provided for in the directive was observed, compatible with Articles 13, 14 and 15 of Directive 2000/60 which concern the procedures for informing and consulting the public and for public participation?

               6.

               For the purpose of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40), as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (OJ 1997 L 73, p. 5), does an environmental impact assessment which relates to the construction of dams and the transfer of water and which was placed for approval before the national parliament after the annulment by a judicial decision of the measure by which it had previously been approved and in respect of which the publicity procedure had previously been observed, without that procedure being observed anew, meet the requirements of Articles 1, 2, 5, 6, 8 and 9 of the directive regarding informing the public and public participation?

               7.

               Does a plan to divert a river fall within the field of application of Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (OJ 2001 L 197, p. 30) where that plan (a) concerns the construction of dams and the transfer of water from one river basin district to another, (b) falls within the field of application of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (OJ 2000 L 327, p. 1), (c) concerns works under Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40) and (d) may have environmental effects on areas covered by Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7)?
               Should the preceding question be answered in the affirmative, the following question must additionally be referred for a preliminary ruling:

               8.

               For the purpose of Article 13(1) of Directive 2001/42, can acts which concerned the scheme at issue and have been annulled with retroactive effect by judicial decisions be considered to be formal preparatory acts which were issued before 21 July 2004 so that there is no obligation to prepare a strategic environmental report?
               Should the preceding question be answered in the negative, the following question must additionally be referred for a preliminary ruling:

               9.

               For the purpose of Article 11(2) of Directive 2001/42, if a plan simultaneously falls within the field of application of that directive and within that of Directives 2000/60 and 85/337 which also require the environmental effects of that scheme to be assessed, are the assessments which have been drawn up on the basis of the provisions of Directives 2000/60 and 85/337 sufficient for observance of the requirements of Directive 2001/42, or will an autonomous strategic environmental report have to be prepared?

               10.

               For the purpose of Articles 3, 4 and 6 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7), were the areas which were included in the national lists of sites of Community importance (SCIs) and, ultimately, were included in the Community list of SCIs covered by the protection afforded by Directive 92/43 before the publication of Commission Decision 2006/13/EC of 19 July 2006, by which the list of protected SCIs for the Mediterranean biogeographical region was adopted?

               11.

               Is it possible, for the purpose of Articles 3, 4 and 6 of Directive 92/43, for the competent national authorities to grant consent authorising the carrying out of a project for the diversion of waters which is not directly connected with or necessary to the conservation of a district included within a special protection area when all the studies that are contained in the file for that project record a complete lack of information or an absence of reliable and updated data regarding the birds in that district?

               12.

               For the purpose of Articles 3, 4 and 6 of Directive 92/43, can reasons for which a project to divert waters is undertaken that relate principally to irrigation and secondarily to water supply constitute the imperative public interest which the directive requires in order for that scheme to be permitted to be carried out notwithstanding all its adverse effects on areas protected by the directive?
               Should the preceding question be answered in the affirmative, the following question must additionally be referred for a preliminary ruling:

               13.

               In determining the sufficiency of the compensatory measures which are necessary to ensure that the overall coherence of a Natura 2000 area that is harmed by a project to divert waters is protected, for the purpose of Articles 3, 4 and 6 of Directive 92/43 should criteria such as the breadth of that diversion and the extent of the works which the diversion entails be taken into account?

               14.

               For the purpose of Articles 3, 4 and 6 of Directive 92/43, interpreted in the light of the principle of sustainable development as enshrined in Article 6 of the EC Treaty, may the competent national authorities grant consent for the carrying out of a project to divert waters within a Natura 2000 area that is not directly connected with or necessary to the preservation of the coherence of that area, when it is apparent from the environmental impact assessment for the project that the project will result in the conversion of a natural fluvial ecosystem into a man-made fluvial and lacustrine ecosystem?


title: Case T-119/00: Action brought on 3 May 2000 by The Procter & Gamble Company against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market.

text:
8.7.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 192/21
Action brought on 3 May 2000 by The Procter & Gamble                    European Communities on 3 May 2000 by The Procter &
Company against the Office for Harmonization in the                     Gamble Company, represented by C.J.J.C. van Nispen and
                        Internal Market.                                G. Kuipers of De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek, The Hague,
                                                                        Netherlands.
                        (Case T-117/00)
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
                        (2000/C 192/38)
                                                                        — annul Decision R516/1999-1 of the First Board of Appeal
                                                                            of the OHIM of 3 March 2000, in so far as it finds that the
                  (Language of the case: English)                           Mark does not satisfy the conditions as laid down in
                                                                            Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94; and
An action against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the            — order the OHIM to pay the costs.
European Communities on 3 May 2000 by The Procter &
Gamble Company, represented by C.J.J.C. van Nispen and
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
G. Kuipers of De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek, The Hague,
Netherlands.
                                                                        Trademark concerned:          Three dimensional trademark in
                                                                                the form of tablets — Application
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                No 954404
— annul Decision R509/1999-1 of the First Board of Appeal               Product or Service:           Products in Class 3 of the Nice
    of the OHIM of 8 March 2000, in so far as it finds that the                                       Agreement (in particular, washing
    Mark does not satisfy the conditions as laid down in                                              and bleaching preparations for
    Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94; and                                                       laundry use; preparations for the
                                                                                washing of dishes, soaps)
— order the OHIM to pay the costs.
                                                                        Contested        decision     Refusal of registration by the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         before the Board of           examiner
                                                                        Appeal:
Trademark concerned:          Three dimensional trademark in            Grounds for appeal:           Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of
                              the form of tablets — Application                                       Regulation 40/94.
                              No 954099
Product or Service:           Products in Class 3 of the Nice
                              Agreement (in particular, washing
                              and bleaching preparations for
                              laundry use; preparations for the
                              washing of dishes, soaps)
                                                                        Action brought on 3 May 2000 by The Procter & Gamble
Contested        decision     Refusal of registration by the            Company against the Office for Harmonization in the
before the Board of           examiner                                                          Internal Market.
Appeal:
                                                                                (Case T-119/00)
Grounds for appeal:           Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of
                              Regulation 40/94.                                                 (2000/C 192/40)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                        An action against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
                                                                        Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Action brought on 3 May 2000 by The Procter & Gamble                    European Communities on 3 May 2000 by The Procter &
Company against the Office for Harmonization in the                     Gamble Company, represented by C.J.J.C. van Nispen and
                        Internal Market                                 G. Kuipers of De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek, The Hague,
                                                                        Netherlands.
                        (Case T-118/00)
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
                        (2000/C 192/39)
                                                                        — annul Decision R519/1999-1 of the First Board of Appeal
                                                                            of the OHIM of 29 February 2000, in so far as it finds that
                  (Language of the case: English)                           the Mark does not satisfy the conditions as laid down in
                                                                            Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94; and
An action against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the            — order the OHIM to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- C 192/22              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     8.7.2000
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         Contested        decision     Refusal of registration by the
                                                                        before the Board of           examiner
Trademark concerned:          Three dimensional trademark in            Appeal:
                              the form of tablets — Application
                              No 954453                                 Grounds for appeal:           Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of
                                                                                Regulation 40/94.
Product or Service:           Products in Class 3 of the Nice
                              Agreement (in particular, washing
                              and bleaching preparations for
                              laundry use; preparations for the
                              washing of dishes, soaps)
Contested        decision     Refusal of registration by the
before the Board of           examiner                                  Action brought on 3 May 2000 by The Procter & Gamble
Appeal:                                                                 Company against the Office for Harmonization in the
                                                                                Internal Market.
Grounds for appeal:           Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of
                              Regulation 40/94.
                                                                                (Case T-121/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 192/42)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
Action brought on 3 May 2000 by The Procter & Gamble
Company against the Office for Harmonization in the                     An action against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
                        Internal Market                                 Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 3 May 2000 by The Procter &
                        (Case T-120/00)                                 Gamble Company, represented by C.J.J.C. van Nispen and
                                                                        G. Kuipers of De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek, The Hague,
                        (2000/C 192/41)                                 Netherlands.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                        — annul Decision R529/1999-1 of the First Board of Appeal
An action against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal              of the OHIM of 29 February 2000, in so far as it finds that
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                the Mark does not satisfy the conditions as laid down in
European Communities on 3 May 2000 by The Procter &                         Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94; and
Gamble Company, represented by C.J.J.C. van Nispen and
G. Kuipers of De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek, The Hague,                 — order the OHIM to pay the costs.
Netherlands.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             Pleas in law and main arguments
— annul Decision R520/1999-1 of the First Board of Appeal               Trademark concerned:          Three dimensional trademark in
    of the OHIM of 29 February 2000, in so far as it finds that                                       the form of tablets Application
    the Mark does not satisfy the conditions as laid down in                                          No 960427
    Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94; and
                                                                        Product or Service:           Products in Class 3 of the Nice
— order the OHIM to pay the costs.                                                                    Agreement (in particular, washing
                                                                                and bleaching preparations for
                                                                                laundry use; preparations for the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                       washing of dishes, soaps)
Trademark concerned:          Three dimensional trademark in            Contested        decision     Refusal of registration by the
                              the form of tablets — Application         before the Board of           examiner
                              No 954479                                 Appeal:
Product or Service:           Products in Class 3 of the Nice           Grounds for appeal:           Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of
                              Agreement (in particular, washing                                       Regulation 40/94.
                              and bleaching preparations for
                              laundry use; preparations for the
                              washing of dishes, soaps)


title: Case T-186/13: Action brought on 2 April 2013 — Netherlands v Commission

text:
               1.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/48

         Action brought on 2 April 2013 — Netherlands v Commission
   (Case T-186/13)
   2013/C 156/89
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M. Bulterman, B. Koopman and J. Langer, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Decision; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant challenges Commission Decision C(2013) 87 of 23 January 2013 on State aid SA.24123 (2012/C) (ex 2011/NN) implemented by the Netherlands — Alleged sale of land below market price by the Municipality of Leidschendam-Voorburg.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU
               This is not a case of State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. According to the Netherlands Government, the present case does not concern a benefit, or at least not a benefit that a market participant would not have obtained under ordinary market conditions. On the basis of false assumptions the Commission drew the mistaken conclusion that the Municipality had other options as regards the construction of the Damplein project. Adherence to existing agreements would not have led to the desired outcome, nor would a renegotiation of the contract have offered a solution. Further, the Commission manifestly erred in its assessment of the question whether trade between Member States was affected. The Leidschendam Centrum project and particularly the Damplein sub-project are so limited in scope that there can be no question of any effect on trade between Member States. The decision is therefore contrary to Article 107 TFEU.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU
               The Commission manifestly erred in its assessment of the facts and on that basis regarded the reduction in the price of the land as being incompatible with the internal market. The reduction in the price of the land satisfies every requirement and the Commission has failed, in particular in the light of earlier Commission decisions, sufficiently to explain why the reduction in the price of the land is incompatible. Further, the Commission erred in using market failure as a criterion for the applicability of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU. The Commission thus misapplied Article 107(3)(c) TFEU.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging erroneous determination of the amount of aid on the basis of several calculation errors
               In calculating the amount of the aid, the Commission made three serious errors. First, the Commission failed to take into account the fact that only 50 % of the reduction in the price of the land and of the waiver of fees was to be financed from public funds. Secondly, the Commission failed to take into account the earlier price reductions of 2006 and 2008 when calculating the reduction in the price of the land. Thirdly, the Commission calculated the fees on the basis of the Leidschendam Centrum project area, instead of that of the Damplein sub-project. Interest paid from 2004 to 2010 was also disregarded. The Commission thus proceeded on the basis of incorrect facts when calculating the amount of the aid, as a result of which the aid figure of EUR 6 922 121 is incorrect.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of general principles and of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Owing to the excessive duration of the procedure for the adoption of the decision, the Commission was not entitled to recovery.
               From the point at which the full facts were known to the Commission, it allowed an unreasonable period of time to elapse before adopting the decision. In the particular circumstances, the Commission ought to have refrained from seeking recovery. The Commission thus breached the principles of due care, legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations.


C 246/46              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                  28.8.1999
       Removal from the register of Case T-32/96 (1)                             Removal from the register of Case T-6/97 (1)
                        (1999/C 246/93)                                                           (1999/C 246/96)
                   (Language of the case: French)                                           (Language of the case: English)
By order of 12 April 1999 the President of the Second                    By order of 5 May 1999 the President of the Fifth Chamber of
Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance            the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from                 ordered the removal from the register of Case T-6/97: Com-
the register of Case T-32/96: Société Générale v Commission              africa SpA and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe Ltd & Co. v Com-
of the European Communities.                                             mission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 133 of 4.5.1996.                                                (1) OJ C 74 of 8.3.1997.
Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-153/96 and
                           T-8/97 (1)                                           Removal from the register of Case T-62/97 (1)
                        (1999/C 246/94)                                                           (1999/C 246/97)
                  (Language of the case: English)                                            (Language of the case: French)
By order of 25 February 1999 the President of the Fifth                  By order of 12 April 1999 the President of the Second
Chamber, Extended Composition of the Court of First Instance             Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from                 of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Joined Cases T-153/96 and T-8/97: Union                  the register of Case T-62/97: Société Générale v Commission
Carbide Corporation v Commission of the European Com-                    of the European Communities.
munities.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 166 of 31.5.1997.
(1) OJ C 354 of 23.11.1996 and OJ C 74 of 8.3.1997.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-124/97 (1)
        Removal from the register of Case T-1/97 (1)
                        (1999/C 246/95)                                                           (1999/C 246/98)
                   (Language of the case: French)                                           (Language of the case: Spanish)
By order of 31 May 1999 the President of the Second Chamber              By order of 15 April 1999 the President of the First Chamber
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities               of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
has ordered the removal from the register of Case T-1/97:                has ordered the removal from the register of Case T-124/97:
Jean-Luc Delhaye v Commission of the European Communi-                   Miguel Dı́az-Llanos La Roche v Commission of the European
ties.                                                                    Communities.
(1) OJ C 54 of 22.2.1997.                                                (1) OJ C 181 of 14.6.1997.


title: Case T-282/01: Action brought on 2 November 2001 by Aslantrans AG against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
16.2.2002               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 44/17
1.    The application for interim measures is dismissed.                  The applicant argues that the remission application should be
                                                                          granted, not least because the Commission did not give a
2.    The costs are reserved.                                             decision within the nine-month time-limit prescribed by
                                                                          Article 907 of the regulation implementing the Customs Code.
                                                                          The applicant further claims that it has been the victim of
                                                                          organised crime and that the theft of the lorry occurred in
                                                                          ‘special circumstances’ within the meaning of Article 239 of
                                                                          Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.
                                                                          (1) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying
Action brought on 2 November 2001 by Aslantrans AG
                                                                              down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation
  against the Commission of the European Communities                          (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code
                                                                              (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1).
                          (Case T-282/01)                                 (2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992
                                                                              establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).
                           (2002/C 44/33)
                   (Language of the case: German)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 2 November 2001 by Aslantrans
AG, established at Rickenbach bei Wil (Switzerland), represent-           Action brought on 13 November 2001 by Organización
ed by J. Weigell, lawyer.                                                 de Productores de Túnidos Congelados against Com-
                                                                                mission of the European Communities
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Case T-283/01)
—     annul the Commission’s decision (REM 19/00) of 18 July
      2001 finding the remission of import duty by the Federal                                      (2002/C 44/34)
      Republic of Germany to the applicant to be unjustified,
      and authorise the Federal Republic of Germany, pursuant
      to Article 908(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 (1), to                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
      remit to the applicant, in accordance with its application
      of 28 May 1998, duty already paid in the sum of
      DEM 395 392,01;
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                               An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 13 November 2001 by Organiza-
                                                                          ción de Productores de Túnidos Congelados, whose registered
                                                                          office is at Bermeo (Vizcaya, Spain), represented by Ramón
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          Garcia-Gallardo and Javier Guillén Carrau, lawyers.
In May 1997 the applicant despatched, at a principal customs
office in Belgium, 12 110 000 cigarettes under the external               The applicant claims that the Court should:
Community transit procedure for transportation from
Antwerp to Montenegro, the customs office of destination
                                                                          —     declare the present application admissible;
being in Austria. During a stop at a motorway rest area, the
lorry and the consignment which it was carrying were
stolen; the lorry driver reported the theft immediately at the            —     annul the act which is the subject of the present
competent police headquarters.                                                  application, by which the European Commission has
                                                                                reduced the quantities eligible for compensatory allow-
                                                                                ance in respect of OPTUC, namely, Article 2(2) of and the
The parties are in dispute concerning the question whether, on                  annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1670/2001 of
the facts, the defendant is obliged, pursuant to Article 239 of                 20 August 2001 providing for compensation to producer
Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (2), to authorise the Federal                       organisations for tuna delivered to the processing industry
Republic of Germany to remit the customs duties already paid.                   between 1 October and 31 December 2000 (1);


title: Case C-128/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 18 March 2014  — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Het Oudeland Beheer BV

text:
               26.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 159/15

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 18 March 2014 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Het Oudeland Beheer BV
   (Case C-128/14)
   2014/C 159/21
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Defendant: Het Oudeland Beheer BV

      Questions referred

               1)

               Must Article 11(A)(1)(b) of the Sixth Directive (1) be interpreted as meaning that the cost price of land or other substances or materials in respect of which the taxable person has paid VAT in respect of their acquisition, in this case through the grant of a right in rem to use immovable property, is not part of the taxable amount in respect of a supply within the meaning of Article 5(7)(a) of the Sixth Directive? Is the position different if the taxable person has deducted this VAT on the basis of national law — whether or not in conflict with the Sixth Directive in that respect — upon that acquisition?

               2)

               In a case such as the present one, in which land with a building under construction is acquired with the grant of a right in rem referred to in Article 5(3)(b) of the Sixth Directive, must Article 11(A)(1)(b) of the Sixth Directive be interpreted as meaning that the value of the ground rent, that is to say the value of the annual amounts to be paid for the duration or remainder of the duration of the right in rem, is part of the taxable amount of a supply within the meaning of Article 5(7)(a) of the Sixth Directive?

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


title: Case C-502/14: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 30 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Buzzi Unicem SpA and Others v Comitato nazionale per la gestione della Direttiva 2003/87/CE e per il supporto nella gestione delle attività di progetto del protocollo di Kyoto, Ministero dell'Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico (Preliminary ruling — Article 99 of Rules of Procedure of the Court — Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Union — Directive 2003/87/EC — Article 10a(5) — Method of allocating allowances — Allocation of allowances free of charge — Method for calculating the uniform cross-sectoral correction factor — Decision 2011/278/EU — Article 15(3) — Decision 2013/448/EU — Article 4 — Annexe II — Validity)

text:
               19.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 343/9

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 30 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Buzzi Unicem SpA and Others v Comitato nazionale per la gestione della Direttiva 2003/87/CE e per il supporto nella gestione delle attività di progetto del protocollo di Kyoto, Ministero dell'Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico
   (Case C-502/14) (1)

   ((Preliminary ruling - Article 99 of Rules of Procedure of the Court - Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Union - Directive 2003/87/EC - Article 10a(5) - Method of allocating allowances - Allocation of allowances free of charge - Method for calculating the uniform cross-sectoral correction factor - Decision 2011/278/EU - Article 15(3) - Decision 2013/448/EU - Article 4 - Annexe II - Validity))
   (2016/C 343/12)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Buzzi Unicem SpA, Colacem SpA, Cogne Acciai Speciali SpA, Olon SpA, Laterlite SpA

      Defendants: Comitato nazionale per la gestione della Direttiva 2003/87/CE e per il supporto nella gestione delle attività di progetto del protocollo di Kyoto, Ministero dell'Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               Consideration of the second question has not disclosed any factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 15(3) of Commission Decision 2011/278/EU of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, in so far as that provision precludes emissions from electricity generators from being taken into account in the determination of the maximum annual amount of allowances.

               2.

               Article 4 of and Annex II to Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 concerning national implementation measures for the transitional free allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances in accordance with Article 11(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council are invalid.

               3.

               The temporal effects of the declaration of invalidity of Article 4 of, and Annex II to, Decision 2013/448 are to be limited so that, first, that declaration does not produce effects until 10 months following the date of delivery of the judgment of 28 April 2016 in Borealis Polyolefine and Others (C-191/14, C-192/14, C-295/14, C-389/14 and C-391/14 to C-393/14, EU:C:2016:311) so as to enable the European Commission to adopt the necessary measures and, second, measures adopted during that period on the basis of the invalidated provisions cannot be called into question.

      (1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2015.


title: Case C-180/06: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 May 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Wien (Austria)) — Renate Ilsinger v Martin Dreschers, acting as administrator in the insolvency of Schlank & Schick GmbH (Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Jurisdiction over consumer contracts — Entitlement of a consumer to whom misleading advertising has been sent to seek payment, in judicial proceedings, of the prize which he has apparently won — Classification — Action of a contractual nature covered by Article 15(1)(c) of that regulation — Conditions)

text:
               4.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 153/3

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 May 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Wien (Austria)) — Renate Ilsinger v Martin Dreschers, acting as administrator in the insolvency of Schlank & Schick GmbH
   (Case C-180/06) (1)

   (Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Jurisdiction over consumer contracts - Entitlement of a consumer to whom misleading advertising has been sent to seek payment, in judicial proceedings, of the prize which he has apparently won - Classification - Action of a contractual nature covered by Article 15(1)(c) of that regulation - Conditions)
   2009/C 153/05
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberlandesgericht Wien

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Renate Ilsinger

      Defendant: Martin Dreschers, acting as administrator in the insolvency of Schlank & Schick GmbH

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberlandesgericht Wien — Interpretation of Article 15(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — National consumer protection law providing for a right to the prize allegedly won by the addressee of the misleading advertisement

      Operative part of the judgment

   In a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in which a consumer seeks, in accordance with the legislation of the Member State in which he is domiciled and before the court for the place in which he resides, an order requiring a mail-order company established in another Member State to pay a prize which that consumer has apparently won, and

               —

               where that company, with the aim of encouraging that consumer to conclude a contract, sent a letter addressed to him personally of such a kind as to give him the impression that he would be awarded a prize if he requested payment by returning the ‘prize claim certificate’ attached to that letter,

               —

               but without the award of that prize depending on an order for goods offered for sale by that company or on a trial order,

         the rules on jurisdiction laid down by Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as follows:

               —

               such legal proceedings brought by the consumer are covered by Article 15(1)(c) of that regulation, on condition that the professional vendor has undertaken in law to pay that prize to the consumer;

               —

               where that condition has not been fulfilled, such proceedings are covered by Article 15(1)(c) of Regulation No 44/2001 only if the consumer has in fact placed an order with that professional vendor.

      (1)  OJ C 165, 15.7.2006.


title: Case C-144/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 24 April 2009 — Hotel Alpenhof GesmbH v Oliver Heller

text:
               4.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 153/26

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 24 April 2009 — Hotel Alpenhof GesmbH v Oliver Heller
   (Case C-144/09)
   2009/C 153/47
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberster Gerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Hotel Alpenhof GesmbH

      Claimant: Oliver Heller

      Question referred

   Is the fact that a website of the party with whom a consumer has concluded a contract can be consulted on the internet sufficient to justify a finding that an activity is being ‘directed’, within the terms of Article 15(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (‘the Brussels I Regulation’)? (1)

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters; OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 February 2000 in Joined Cases C-270/97 and C-271/97 (references for preliminary rulings from the Landesarbeitsgericht Niedersachsen): Deutsche Post AG v Elisabeth Sievers (C-270/97), Brunhilde Schrage (C-271/97) (Equal pay for men and women — Article 119 of the EC Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty have been replaced by Articles 136 EC to 143 EC)— Protocol concerning Article 119 of the EC Treaty — Occupational social security schemes — Exclusion of part-time workers affiliated to a supplementary occupational retirement pension scheme — Retroactive membership — Entitlement to a pension — Relationship between national law and Community law — Interpretation consonant with Community law)

text:
8.4.2000                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 102/7
2. The fact that the relevant national provisions prohibit all                  EC), resulting from the judgment in Case 43/75 Defrenne v
    discrimination against workers by reason of the fact that they              Sabena [1976] ECR 455, does not preclude national provisions
    work part time, and not by reason of their sex, does not affect the         which lay down a principle of equal treatment by virtue of which,
    answer to be given to the first question.                                   in circumstances like those of the main proceedings, all part-time
                                                                                workers are entitled to retroactive membership of an occupational
                                                                                pension scheme and to receive a pension under that scheme.
(1) OJ C 269 of 14.9.1996.
                                                                           2. Article 119 of the Treaty does not preclude provisions of a
                                                                                Member State which lay down a principle of equal treatment by
                                                                                virtue of which, in circumstances like those of the main
                                                                                proceedings, all part-time workers are entitled to retroactive
                                                                                membership of a private occupational pension scheme and to
                                                                                receive a pension under that scheme, notwithstanding the risk of
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                          distortions of competition between economic operators of the
                                                                                various Member States to the detriment of employers established
                          (Sixth Chamber)                                       in the first Member State.
                        of 10 February 2000                                3. National courts are required to interpret their national law as far
                                                                                as possible in the light of the wording and purpose of the relevant
in Joined Cases C-270/97 and C-271/97 (references for                           Community provisions, in particular Article 119 of the Treaty,
preliminary rulings from the Landesarbeitsgericht Nieder-                       in order to ensure application of the principle of equal pay for
sachsen): Deutsche Post AG v Elisabeth Sievers                                  men and women.
         (C-270/97), Brunhilde Schrage (C-271/97) (1)
                                                                           (1) OJ C 271 of 6.9.1997.
(Equal pay for men and women — Article 119 of the EC
Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty have been
replaced by Articles 136 EC to 143 EC) — Protocol
concerning Article 119 of the EC Treaty — Occupational
social security schemes — Exclusion of part-time workers
affiliated to a supplementary occupational retirement pen-
sion scheme — Retroactive membership — Entitlement to a
pension — Relationship between national law and Com-
munity law — Interpretation consonant with Community                                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                 law)
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                           (2000/C 102/10)
                                                                                of 10 February 2000
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                           in Case C-340/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                           the Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht Ansbach): Ömer
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published         Nazli, Caglar Nazli, Melike Nazli v Stadt Nürnberg (1)
                    in the European Court Reports)
In Joined Cases C-270/97 and C-271/97: references to the                   (EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Freedom of move-
Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now Article 234                  ment for workers — Articles 6(1) and 14(1) of Decision
EC) from the Landesarbeitsgericht Niedersachsen (Germany)                  No 1/80 of the Association Council — Registration as duly
for preliminary rulings in the proceedings pending before                  belonging to the labour force of a Member State — Turkish
that court between Deutsche Post AG and Elisabeth Sievers                  worker detained pending trial and subsequently sentenced to
(C-270/97), Brunhilde Schrage (C-271/97) — on the interpret-               a suspended term of imprisonment — Expulsion on general
ation of Article 119 of the EC Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 of                                        preventive grounds)
the EC Treaty have been replaced by Articles 136 EC to 143
EC) and of the Protocol concerning Article 119 of the Treaty                                           (2000/C 102/11)
establishing the European Community, annexed to the EC
Treaty — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: R. Schint-
gen (Rapporteur), President of the Second Chamber, acting for                                   (Language of the case: German)
the President of the Sixth Chamber, G. Hirsch and H. Ragne-
malm, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Princi-
pal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
10 February 2000, in which it has ruled:                                                        in the European Court Reports)
1. The limitation in time of the possibility of relying on the direct
    effect of Article 119 of the EC Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 of         In Case C-340/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
    the EC Treaty have been replaced by Articles 136 EC to 143             the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Bayerisches


title: Case F-63/11: Action brought on 1 June 2011 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               30.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 226/32

         Action brought on 1 June 2011 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-63/11)
   2011/C 226/64
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Rodrigues, A. Blot and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the implied decision not to renew the applicant’s temporary staff contract

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the implied decision adopted on 12 August 2010 by the Director General of OLAF (European Anti-Fraud Office), in his capacity as the authority authorised to conclude contracts of employment, not to renew the applicant’s contract, as is apparent, inter alia, from the lack of reply to the request sent to him by the applicant on 12 April 2011;

               —

               In so far as necessary, annul the decision adopted on 22 February 2011 by the authority authorised to conclude contracts of employment rejecting the claim brought by the applicant on the basis of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations;

               —

               In consequence, reinstate the applicant in the functions which he performed within OLAF, in the context of a prolongation of his contract in accordance with the statutory requirements;

               —

               In the alternative, and in the event that the claim for reinstatement made above should not be upheld, order the defendant to compensate the applicant for the material damage suffered, provisionally estimated ex aequo et bono at the difference in the remuneration which he received as a temporary staff member in OLAF and that which he receives in his present post (that is to say, around EUR 3 000 per month), at the very least for a length of time similar to that of his initial contract (four years) and beyond that period on the basis that that contract would have been renewed for a third time, entitling him to a contract of employment for an indefinite period;

               —

               In any event, order the defendant to pay a provisional ex aequo et bono sum of EUR 5 000 in compensation for the non-material damage, together with late-payment interest at the legal rate from the date of the judgment;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-504/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 November 2016 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environment — Nature conservation — Directive 92/43/EEC — Article 6(2) and (3) and Article 12(1)(b) and (d) — Wild fauna and flora — Conservation of natural habitats — Sea turtle Caretta caretta — Protection of sea turtles in the Gulf of Kyparissia — ‘Dunes of Kyparissia’ Site of Community importance — Protection of species)

text:
               16.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 14/3

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 November 2016 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-504/14) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Nature conservation - Directive 92/43/EEC - Article 6(2) and (3) and Article 12(1)(b) and (d) - Wild fauna and flora - Conservation of natural habitats - Sea turtle Caretta caretta - Protection of sea turtles in the Gulf of Kyparissia - ‘Dunes of Kyparissia’ Site of Community importance - Protection of species))
   (2017/C 014/03)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Patakia and C. Hermes, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: E. Skandalou, acting as Agent)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that the Hellenic Republic

                           —

                           by tolerating the construction of houses in Agiannaki (Greece) in 2010, the use, without a sufficient regulatory framework, of other houses in Agiannaki which were built in 2006 and the commencement of building works relating to around 50 dwellings located between Agiannaki and Elaia (Greece), and by authorising in 2012 the construction of three holiday houses in Vounaki (Greece);

                           —

                           by tolerating the development of access routes to the beach in the Dunes of Kyparissia area (Greece), namely the opening up of five new roads to Agiannaki beach and the asphalting of certain existing roads and thoroughfares;

                           —

                           by failing to take adequate measures to enforce the prohibition on wild camping close to the beaches at Kalo Nero (Greece) and Elaia;

                           —

                           by failing to take the measures necessary to restrict the operation of bars between Elaia and Kalo Nero, on the breeding beaches of the Caretta caretta sea turtle, and by failing to ensure that the various forms of pollution caused by those bars do not disturb that species;

                           —

                           by failing to take the measures necessary to reduce, within the Kyparissia area, the furniture and various structures found on the breeding beaches of the Caretta caretta sea turtle and by authorising the construction of a platform near the Messina Mare Hotel;

                           —

                           by failing to take the measures necessary so as to ensure that the light pollution affecting the breeding beaches of the Caretta caretta sea turtle in the Kyparissia area is adequately curtailed; and

                           —

                           by failing to take the measures necessary to ensure that fishing in the waters off the breeding beaches of the Caretta caretta sea turtle in the Kyparissia area is adequately curtailed,

                     has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(2) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, as amended by Council Directive 2006/105/EC of 20 November 2006;

               2.

               Declares that, by issuing permits for houses built in 2010 in Agiannaki, for three holiday houses in Vounaki in 2012 and for the construction of a platform near the Messina Mare Hotel, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43;

               3.

               Declares that the Hellenic Republic,

                           —

                           by failing to adopt a comprehensive, coherent and strict legislative and regulatory framework for the protection of the Caretta caretta sea turtle in the Kyparissia area;

                           —

                           by failing to take, within the prescribed period, all the specific measures necessary to prevent the deliberate disturbance of the Caretta caretta sea turtle during its breeding period; and

                           —

                           by failing to take the measures necessary to enforce the prohibition on deterioration or destruction of the breeding sites of that species,

                     has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 12(1)(b) and (d) of Directive 92/43;

               4.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               5.

               Orders the European Commission and the Hellenic Republic to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 7, 12.1.2015.


title: Appeal brought on 3 August 1998 by W. against the judgment delivered on 28 May 1998 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-78/96 and T-170/96 between W. and the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-304/98 P)

text:
26.9.98                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 299/27
5. Questions on shift work and shift workers:                           Ð infringement of Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff
                                                                            Regulations of Officials,
     In view of the fact that the working time at issue is
     shift work only in relation to on-call duty, and in the
     absence of harmonising legislation, can the work                   Ð infringement of Articles 26 and 43 of the Staff
     performed by the medical practitioners concerned be                    Regulations of Officials: contrary to the assertions of
     regarded as shift work and must they be regarded as                    the Court of First Instance, the absence of periodic
     shift workers in accordance with the definition                        staff reports for 1991 to 1993 and 1993 to 1995 not
     contained in Article 2(5) and (6) of the Directive?                    only affected the administrative situation and career of
                                                                            the appellant but also deprived that official of all
(1) Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993                         defence rights,
    concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time
    (OJ L 307, 13.12.1993, p. 18).                                      Ð breach of the concept of interests of the service' and
(2) OJ L 183, 29.6.1989, p. 1.
                                                                            breach of the audi alteram parte rule and of the
                                                                            principles of equal treatment and of non-
                                                                            discrimination: in finding that the Commission did not
                                                                            have to prove the facts alleged or the extent to which
                                                                            blame should be apportioned between the two officials
Appeal brought on 3 August 1998 by W. against the                           concerned, the Court of First Instance has contravened
judgment delivered on 28 May 1998 by the Fifth Chamber                      the case-law and also implicitly acknowledged that the
of the Court of First Instance of the European                              Commission committed an error of assessment and
Communities in Joined Cases T-78/96 and T-170/96                            misused its powers,
between W. and the Commission of the European
                           Communities                                  Ð infringement of Article 25(1) of the Staff Regulations
                       (Case C-304/98 P)                                    of Officials.
                          (98/C 299/41)
                                                                        (Case T-170/96)
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 28 May
1998 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance                Ð infringement of Articles 215(2) and 178 of the EC
of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-78/96                         Treaty: for the Court of First Instance to regard an
and T-170/96 between W. and the Commission of the                           action for damages as a claim for compensation
European Communities was brought before the Court of                        ancillary to an action for annulment amounts to a
Justice of the European Communities on 3 August 1998                        distortion of the applicant's pleadings. The material
by W., represented by Gilles Bouneou, of the Luxembourg                     and non-material damage in respect of which
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at 4 rue                     reparation is sought in the present case arises out of a
de l'Avenir.                                                                failure by the administration to adopt a decision and
                                                                            was caused to the appellant by conduct which cannot
The appellant claims that the Court should:                                 be characterised as an act adversely affecting an
                                                                            official because they produce no legal effects. This is
Ð declare the appeal admissible and well-founded,
                                                                            precisely the case with regard to the plea alleging:
and accordingly                                                             infringement of Articles 4 and 29; breach of the duty
                                                                            to have regard for the welfare of officials; misuse of
Ð set aside the contested judgment in Cases T-78/96 and                     powers; inadequate statement of reasons.
     T-170/96,
Ð grant the form of order sought at first instance,
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs in their
     entirety.
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Divisional
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     Court, Queen's Bench Division, by order of that Court of
                                                                        14 July 1998, in the Case of the Queen against (1)
(Case T-78/96)                                                          Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, (2) Secretary
                                                                        of State for the Environment, ex parte: Monsanto plc, and
Ð irregularity of the proceedings: the Court of First                                      I Pi Ci SpA, Intervener
     Instance misinterpreted the facts submitted before it                                    (Case C-306/98)
     and failed to take into account evidence adduced and
     offered to be adduced by the appellant,                                                    (98/C 299/42)
Ð the Court of First Instance restricted the rights of the
     defence,                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by an order of the Divisional
Ð contradictory and inadequate grounds of the judgment                  Court, Queen's Bench Division, of 14 July 1998, which
     appealed against as a result of incorrect findings of              was received at the Court Registry on 4 August 1998, for
     facts,                                                             a preliminary ruling in the Case of The Queen against (1)


title: Case T-680/15: Action brought on 20 November 2015 — Les Éclaires v OHIM — L’éclaireur International (L’ECLAIREUR)

text:
               1.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/66

         Action brought on 20 November 2015 — Les Éclaires v OHIM — L’éclaireur International (L’ECLAIREUR)
   (Case T-680/15)
   (2016/C 038/89)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Les Éclaires GmbH (Nürnberg, Germany) (represented by: S. Bund, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: L’éclaireur International (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

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

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘L’ECLAIREUR’ — Community trade mark No 3 494 028

      Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 September 2015 in Case R 2266/2014-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 15(1) Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Discordance with the Guidelines for Examination of the OHIM Part C Section 6.


title: Case T-857/16: Action brought on 5 December 2016 — Erdinger Weißbräu Werner Brombach v EUIPO (Shape of a large glass)

text:
               6.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/45

         Action brought on 5 December 2016 — Erdinger Weißbräu Werner Brombach v EUIPO (Shape of a large glass)
   (Case T-857/16)
   (2017/C 038/59)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Erdinger Weißbräu Werner Brombach GmbH & Co. KG (Erding, Germany) (represented by: A. Hayn, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the three-dimensional mark ‘Shape of a large glass’ — Application for registration No 1 242 704

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 September 2016 in Case R 659/2016-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred in the appeal proceedings;

               —

               hold a hearing.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case C-142/01: Action brought on 28 March 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
C 150/18               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         19.5.2001
—     The Court of First Instance decided to rule on the                Action brought on 30 March 2001 by the Commission of
      admissibility of the application without appraising all the       the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain
      relevant matters of fact and of law.
—     The Court of First Instance infringed upon the applicant’s                                   (Case C-143/01)
      right of action by failing to take into consideration
      whether or not it was possible for the parties to have
      proper access to the facts relevant to the case, which were                                  (2001/C 150/34)
      in fact not available until 15 May 1995 for objective
      reasons and because of the conduct of the Community.
      The appellant also alleges that the limitation period laid        An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
      down by the abovementioned provision, to which there              the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 30 March
      are no exceptions, was improperly curtailed.                      2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                        represented by Mr Dı́az-Llanos La Roche and Mr Gómez de la
                                                                        Cruz Talegón, whose address for service in Luxembourg is that
                                                                        of Mr Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre C2/254, Kirchberg.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
Action brought on 28 March 2001 by the Commission of                    —     Declare that, by applying a reduced rate of VAT to
  the European Communities against the Italian Republic                       supplies, intra-Community acquisitions or importations
                                                                              of liquified petroleum gas, the Kingdom of Spain has
                         (Case C-142/01)                                      failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 12 of the Sixth
                                                                              VAT Directive (1)
                         (2001/C 150/33)
                                                                        —     Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 28 March
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Maria Patakia and Antonio Aresu, acting as               Pleas in law and main arguments
Agents.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             The Commission does not concur with the arguments put
                                                                        forward by the Spanish authorities that butane gas is a fuel
                                                                        similar to natural gas, for which reason it should be subject to
—     Declare that, by maintaining in force Article 12(1) of Law
                                                                        the same tax system. Article 12(3)(b) of the Sixth VAT Directive
      No 81 of 8 March 1991, which makes the recognition of
                                                                        constitutes an exception and does not allow for application by
      ski monitors’ diplomas subject to a reciprocal condition,
                                                                        analogy.
      the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
      under Council Directive 92/51/EEC (1) of 18 June 1992
      on a second general system for the recognition of
      professional education and training to supplement Direc-          Even if a supply of butane gas (sucAh gas being the fuel used
      tive 89/48/EEC (2); and                                           by social groups with limited economic means), could be
                                                                        considered as falling within the ambit of ‘cultural or social
—     Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                      services’ for the purposes of Annex H, to which Article 12(3)(a)
                                                                        refers, the application of a reduced rate of VAT would lack,
                                                                        even in that case, any legal basis. Paragraph 14 of Annex H to
                                                                        the directive states that such supplies of goods or services must
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         be made by ‘organisations recognised as charities by Member
                                                                        States and engaged in welfare or social security’.
Article 12(1) of Law No 81 of 8 March 1991 is incompatible
with Directive 92/51/EEC given that it imposes a condition of
reciprocity in order to obtain recognition of a diploma for ski
monitors obtained in another Member State, thereby adding               (1) Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonis-
to the directive a condition which it does not provide for.                 ation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes
                                                                            — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of
                                                                            assessment (OJ L 145 of 13.6.1977, p. 1).
(1) OJ 1992 L 209, p. 25.
(2) OJ 1989 L 19, p. 16.


title: Case T-72/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 September 2005 — Hosman-Chevalier v Commission (Officials — Remuneration — Expatriation allowance — Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Meaning of ‘work done for another State’)

text:
               15.10.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 257/10

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 September 2005 — Hosman-Chevalier v Commission
   (Case T-72/04) (1)

   (Officials - Remuneration - Expatriation allowance - Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Meaning of ‘work done for another State’)
   (2005/C 257/19)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties:

      Applicant(s): Sonja Hosman-Chevalier (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by J. R. García-Gallardo Gil-Fournier, E. Wouters and A. Sayagués Torres, lawyers)

      Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities (represented by J. Currall and M. Velardo, Agents)
   Application for:
   annulment of the Commission's decision of 29 October 2003 refusing to pay the applicant the expatriation allowance under Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities and the allowances associated therewith
   Operative part of the judgment:
   The Court:

               1)

               Annuls the decisions of 8 April and 29 October 2003 in so far as they refuse to grant the applicant payment of the expatriation allowance laid down in Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities and payment of the installation allowance laid down in Article 5(1) of that same annex;

               2)

               Dismisses the remainder of the application;

               3)

               Orders the Commission to bear all the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 94, 17.4.2004.