title: Case C-471/04: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of  23 February 2006  (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof) — Finanzamt Offenbach am Main-Land v Keller Holding GmbH (Freedom of establishment — Corporation tax — Right of a parent company to deduct costs relating to its shareholdings — Non-deductible financing costs having an economic link with dividends exempt from tax — Dividends distributed by an indirect subsidiary established in a Member State other than that in which the parent company has its seat)

text:
               3.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/20

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 23 February 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof) — Finanzamt Offenbach am Main-Land v Keller Holding GmbH
   (Case C-471/04) (1)

   (Freedom of establishment - Corporation tax - Right of a parent company to deduct costs relating to its shareholdings - Non-deductible financing costs having an economic link with dividends exempt from tax - Dividends distributed by an indirect subsidiary established in a Member State other than that in which the parent company has its seat)
   (2006/C 131/35)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesfinanzhof
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Finanzamt Offenbach am Main-Land

      Defendant: Keller Holding GmbH
   Re:
   Preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC), Article 58 and Article 73b of the EC Treaty (now Article 48EC and 56 EC) — Corporation tax — Non-deductibility of expenditure having a direct economic link to tax-free profits — Expenditure incurred by a parent company established in a Member State linked to its shareholding in a subsidiary established in the same Member State, in connection with dividends distributed by a second-tier subsidiary which are exempted from tax by virtue of the fact that this latter company is established in another Member State
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) and Article 31 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992 must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which excludes the possibility of deducting for tax purposes financing costs incurred by a parent company subject to unlimited tax liability in that State in order to acquire holdings in a subsidiary where those costs relate to dividends which are exempt from tax because they are derived from an indirect subsidiary established in another Member State or in a State which is party to the Agreement, whereas such costs may be deducted where they relate to dividends paid by an indirect subsidiary established in the same Member State as that of the place of the registered office of the parent company and which, in reality, also benefit from a tax exemption.

      (1)  OJ C 19, 22.01.2005.


title: Case C-93/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korsholms tingsrätt by order of that court of 18 February 2005 in Teemu Hakala v Oy L Simons Transport AB

text:
               11.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/15

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korsholms tingsrätt by order of that court of 18 February 2005 in Teemu Hakala v Oy L Simons Transport AB
   (Case C-93/05)
   (2005/C 143/21)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Korsholms tingsrätt (Sweden) of 18 February 2005, received at the Court Registry on 22 February 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Teemu Hakala and Oy L Simons Transport AB on the following question:
   Is a pay scheme which is based on distance covered, in circumstances such as those of this case, contrary to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 (1) and in particular to Article 10 thereof?

      (1)  of 20 December 1985 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport (OJ L 370, 31.12.1985, p. 1).


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 11 July 1996 in Case C-304/95: Commission of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic (Failure to fulfil obligations - Directive 92/5/EEC - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
9 . 11 . 96            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 336/ 13
Court ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of: D. A. O. Edward,                      Directive 64/433/EEC, the Hellenic Republic has failed
President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet, C. Gulmann, P.                  to fulfil its obligations pursuant to Article 3 of Directive
Jann and M. Wathelet ( Rapporteur ), Judges; C. O. Lenz,                    92/5/EEC;
Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
judgment on 11 July 1996 , in which it:
                                                                      2 . Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
1 . Declares that, by not adopting within the prescribed
                                                                      (') OJ No C 299 , 11 . 11 . 1995 .
      period the laws, regulations and administrative
                                                                      ( 2 ) OJ No L 57, 1992 , p . 1 .
      provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
      91 /157'/EEC of 18 March 1991 on batteries and
      accumulators containing certain dangerous substances,
      the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
      under that Directive;
2 . Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 30 July 1996
(') OJ No C 286 , 28 . 10 . 1995 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 78 , 1991 , p . 38 .                                    in Case C-84/95 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from the
                                                                      Supreme Court of Ireland ): Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm
                                                                      ve Ticaret AS v. Minister for Transport, Energy and
                                                                          Communications, Ireland and the Attorney General f 1 )
                                                                      (Embargo against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
                                                                         (Serbia and Montenegro) — Impounding of an aircraft)
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                             ( 96/C 336/24 )
                         ( Sixth Chamber )
                          of 11 July 1996                                                (Language of the case: English)
       in Case C-304/95 : Commission of the European
              Communities v. Hellenic Republic ( J )                  In Case C-84/95 : reference to the Court pursuant to
(Failure to fulfil obligations — Directive 92/5/EEC —                 Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Supreme Court of
       Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)             Ireland for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
                           ( 96/C 336/23 )                            before that court between Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm
                                                                      ve Ticaret AS and Minister for Transport, Energy and
                                                                      Communications, Ireland and the Attorney General — on
                 (Language of the case: Greek)                        the interpretation of Article 8 of Council Regulation ( EEC )
                                                                      No 990/93 of 26 April 1993 concerning trade between the
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be          European Economic Community and the Federal Republic
           published in the European Court Reports)                   of Yugoslavia ( Serbia and Montenegro ) ( 2 ) — the Court,
                                                                      composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, C. N.
In Case C-304/95 : Commission of the European                         Kakouris and D. A. O. Edward ( Presidents of Chambers ),
Communities ( Agent: Maria Kontou Durande ) v. Hellenic               G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida , P. J. G. Kapteyn
Republic ( Agents : Aikaterini Samoni-Rantou and Nana                 ( Rapporteur ), J. L. Murray, H. Ragnemalm and L. Sevón,
Dafniou ) — application for a declaration that, by failing to         Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General ; L. Hewlett,
adopt and notify to the Commission within the prescribed              Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
period the laws, regulations and administrative provisions            30 July 1996 , in which it rules :
necessary to comply with Council Directive 92/5/EEC of
10 February 1992 amending and updating Directive                      Article 8 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 990/93 of
77/99/EEC on health problems affecting intra-Community                26 April 1993 concerning trade between the European
trade in meat products and amending Directive                         Economic Community and the Federal Republic of
64/433/EEC ( 2 ), the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its      Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) applies to an aircraft
obligations pursuant to the EC Treaty and Directive                   which is owned by an undertaking based in or operating
92/5/EEC — the Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of:                  from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and
C. N. Kakouris, President of the Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn            Montenegro), even though the owner has leased it for four
and H. Ragnemalm ( Rapporteur ), Judges; C. O. Lenz,                  years to another undertaking, neither based in nor operating
Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a                    from that Republic and in which no person or undertaking
judgment on 11 July 1996, in which it:                                based in or operating from that republic has a majority or
                                                                      controlling interest.
1 . Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
      period the laws, regulations and administrative                 (M OJ No C 137, 3 . 6 . 1995 .
      provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive           ( 2 ) OJ No L 102 , 1993 , p . 14 .
      92/5/EEC of 10 February 1 992 amending and updating
      Directive 77/99/EEC on health problems affecting
      intra-Community trade in meat products and amending


15.6.2002             EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 144/31
       Removal from the register of Case C-407/00 (1)             from the register of Case C-462/00: Commission of the
                                                                  European Communities v Republic of Austria.
                       (2002/C 144/59)
                                                                  (1) OJ C 45 of 10.2.2001.
By order of 20 March 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-407/00: Commission of the
European Communities v Republic of Austria.
                                                                         Removal from the register of Case C-235/01 (1)
(1) OJ C 28 of 27.1.2001.
                                                                                (2002/C 144/63)
                                                                  By order of 9 January 2002 the President of the Court of
                                                                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                  from the register of Case C-235/01: Commission of the
       Removal from the register of Case C-408/00 (1)             European Communities v Italian Republic.
                       (2002/C 144/60)                            (1) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.
By order of 22 February 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-408/00: Commission of the
European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.                      Removal from the register of Case C-242/01 (1)
(1) OJ C 28 of 27.1.2001.                                                                (2002/C 144/64)
                                                                  By order of 7 February 2002 the President of the Court of
                                                                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                  from the register of Case C-242/01: Commission of the
                                                                  European Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg.
       Removal from the register of Case C-461/00 (1)
                                                                  (1) OJ C 212 of 28.7.2001.
                       (2002/C 144/61)
By order of 1st March 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-461/00: Commission of the
European Communities v Republic of Austria.                       Removal from the register of Joined Cases C-269/01 and
                                                                                C-270/01 (1)
(1) OJ C 45 of 10.2.2001.                                                                (2002/C 144/65)
                                                                  By order of 22 March 2002 the President of the Court of
                                                                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                  from the register of Joined Cases C-269/01 and C-270/01
                                                                  (Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Civile e
       Removal from the register of Case C-462/00 (1)
                                                                  Penale di L’Aquila): Flora Panepucci v Rina Iannarelli (Case
                                                                  C-269/01) and Attilio Maria Cecchini v Mario Basile (Case
                       (2002/C 144/62)                            C-270/01).
                                                                  (1) OJ C 275 of 29.9.2001.
By order of 1st March 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal


title: Case T-167/14: Judgment of the General Court of 11 October 2016 — Søndagsavisen v Commission (State Aid — Aid scheme to support production and innovation aid for written media — Decision not to raise objections — Decision declaring the aid scheme compatible with the internal market — Procedural rights of the interested parties — No serious difficulties — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               21.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 428/14

         Judgment of the General Court of 11 October 2016 — Søndagsavisen v Commission
   (Case T-167/14) (1)

   ((State Aid - Aid scheme to support production and innovation aid for written media - Decision not to raise objections - Decision declaring the aid scheme compatible with the internal market - Procedural rights of the interested parties - No serious difficulties - Obligation to state reasons))
   (2016/C 428/14)
   Language of the case: Danish

      Parties

      Applicant: Søndagsavisen A/S (Søborg, Denmark) (represented initially by: M. Honoré and C. Fornø, lawyers, and subsequently by: M. Honoré, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Grønfeldt and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: C. Thorning, acting as Agent, assisted by R. Holdgaard, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2013) 7870 final of 20 November 2013 concerning State aid SA.36366 (2013/N) notified by the Kingdom of Denmark Production in favour of production and innovation aid to written media.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Søndagsavisen A/S to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of Denmark to bear its own costs

      (1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.


title: Case C-438/07: Action brought on 19 September 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden

text:
               24.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/21

         Action brought on 19 September 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden
   (Case C-438/07)
   (2007/C 283/38)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Parpala, M. Patakia and S. Pardo Quintillán)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Sweden
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that the defendant has breached Article 5(2), (3) and (5) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment (1), as amended by Commission Directive 98/15/EC of 27 February 1998 (2). The breach consists in the failure to order, at the latest by 31 December 1998, that all emissions from urban waste-water treatment plants with a population equivalent of over 10 000 discharging directly into sensitive areas or their catchment areas fulfil the applicable requirements in Annex I to Council Directive 91/271/EEC, and

               —

               Order the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In 1994, Sweden classified all its waters as sensitive areas. In 1998 and 2000, Sweden confirmed that classification for the Commission of the European Communities (the Commission) and stated that eutrophication was used as a criterion and that it is the bodies of water affected which determine the type of tertiary treatment necessary.
   The Swedish authorities take the view that nitrogen treatment is not necessary for emissions into the Baltic Sea from agglomerations with a population equivalent (p.e.) of over 10 000 in the area situated to the north of the commune of Norrtälje. Nitrogen treatment therefore takes place only in coastal areas between the commune of Norrtälje and the Norwegian border. They also take the view that nitrogen emissions from urban areas with a pe of over 10 000 in central South Sweden do not contribute to the eutrophication of coastal water, since there is adequate natural retention of nitrogen in transit through the catchment area from the source of the pollution to the sea.
   The Commission takes the view that there is scientific evidence that phosphor and nitrogen are the main causes of the eutrophication of the Baltic Sea. Phosphor and nitrogen emissions into coastal water are spread to other parts of the Baltic Sea and emissions into inland waters should which lie in the Baltic Sea's catchment area contribute to its eutrophication.
   Therefore, general nitrogen treatment of wastewater from urban areas with a population equivalent (p.e.) of over 10 000 which runs out directly into sensitive areas or their catchment areas must be introduced at affected treatment plants.
   The failure to take such measures constitutes a breach of Directive 91/271/EEC, as amended by Commission Directive 98/15/EC, in particular of Article 5(2), (3) and (5) (of Directive 91/271).

      (1)  OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40.

      (2)  OJ L 67, 7.3.1998, p. 29.


title: Case T-104/16: Judgment of the General Court of 9 March 2017 — Puma v EUIPO (FOREVER FASTER) (EU trade mark — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark FOREVER FASTER — Mark consisting of an advertising slogan — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Equal treatment — Principle of sound administration)

text:
               24.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/19

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 March 2017 — Puma v EUIPO (FOREVER FASTER)
   (Case T-104/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark FOREVER FASTER - Mark consisting of an advertising slogan - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Equal treatment - Principle of sound administration))
   (2017/C 129/31)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: M. Schunke, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: H. O’Neill and K. Sidat Humphreys, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 January 2016 (Case R 770/2015-1) relating to the international registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark FOREVER FASTER.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Puma SE to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 165, 10.5.2016, p. 16.


title: Case C-189/06 P: Order of the Court of 20 April 2007 — TEA-CEGOS, SA, Services techniques globaux (STG) SA v GHK Consulting Ltd, Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Public contracts for services — Call for tenders relating to a multiple framework contract for the short term recruitment of experts responsible for providing technical assistance to third countries — Rejection of the appellants' tender — Appeal manifestly unfounded)

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/23

         Order of the Court of 20 April 2007 — TEA-CEGOS, SA, Services techniques globaux (STG) SA v GHK Consulting Ltd, Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-189/06 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Public contracts for services - Call for tenders relating to a multiple framework contract for the short term recruitment of experts responsible for providing technical assistance to third countries - Rejection of the appellants' tender - Appeal manifestly unfounded)
   (2007/C 96/40)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellants: TEA-CEGOS, SA, Services techniques globaux (STG) SA (represented by: G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, avocats)

      Other parties to the proceedings: GHK Consulting Ltd, Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Wilderspin and G. Boudot, Agents)
   Re:
   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 14 February 2006 in Joined Cases T-376/05 and T-383/05 TEA-CEGOS and Others v Commission dismissing the application for annulment, first, of the Commission's decisions of 12 October 2005 rejecting the tenders submitted by the applicants in the context of the procedure for the call for tenders bearing the reference ‘EuropeAid/119860/C/SV/multi-Lot 7 ’and, second, of any other decision taken by the Commission in the context of the same call for tenders following the decisions of 12 October 2005
   Operative part of the order
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders TEA-CEGOS SA and Services techniques globaux (STG) SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 165, 15.7.2006.


title: Case C-40/03 P: Appeal brought on 4 February 2003 by Rica Foods (Free Zone) NV against the judgment delivered on 14 November 2002 by the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) in Joined Cases T-332/00 and T-350/00 Rica Foods (Free Zone) NV, supported by the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Free Trade Foods NV, v Commission of the European Communities, supported by the Kingdom of Spain

text:
21.6.2003                EN                            Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 146/13
                     ORDER OF THE COURT                                        Appeal brought on 4 February 2003 by Rica Foods (Free
                                                                               Zone) NV against the judgment delivered on 14 Novem-
                                                                               ber 2002 by the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber)
                                                                               in Joined Cases T-332/00 and T-350/00 Rica Foods (Free
                            (First Chamber)                                    Zone) NV, supported by the Kingdom of the Netherlands
                                                                               and Free Trade Foods NV, v Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities, supported by the Kingdom of Spain
                            of 6 March 2003
                                                                                (Case C-40/03 P)
in Case C-449/01 Reference for a preliminary ruling by
the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division):
      Abbey Life Assurance Co. Ltd v Kok theam Yeap ( 1)                                                 (2003/C 146/22)
(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Directive 86/
653/EEC — Coordination of the laws of the Member States
relating to self-employed commercial agents — Applicability                    An appeal has been brought before the Court of Justice of the
     to agents in the insurance and financial services fields)                 European Communities on 4 February 2003 by Rica Foods
                                                                               (Free Zone) NV, represented by G. van der Wal, advocaat
                                                                               before the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, against the judgment
                                                                               delivered on 14 November 2002 by the Court of First Instance
                            (2003/C 146/21)
                                                                               (Third Chamber) in Joined Cases T-332/00 and T-350/00 Rica
                                                                               Foods (Free Zone) NV, supported by the Kingdom of the
                                                                               Netherlands and Free Trade Foods NV, v Commission of the
                    (Language of the case: English)                            European Communities, supported by the Kingdom of Spain.
                                                                               The appellant claims that the Court should:
In Case C-449/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234                     1.   declare admissible the appeal lodged by the appellant
EC by the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division)                      against the judgment delivered on 14 November 2002 by
(United Kingdom) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                        the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
pending before that court between Abbey Life Assurance Co.                          in Joined Cases T-332/00 and T-350/00;
Ltd and Kok Theam Yeap, on the interpretation of Council
Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordi-
nation of the laws of the Member States relating to self-                      2.   set aside the judgment delivered on 14 November 2002
employed commercial agents (OJ 1986 L 382, p. 17), the                              by the Court of First Instance of the European Communi-
Court (First Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of                       ties in Joined Cases T-332/00 and T-350/00 and, ruling
the Chamber, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and A. Rosas, Judges;                             afresh pursuant to the application at first instance lodged
C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made                      by the present appellant on 27 October 2000:
an order on 6 March 2003, the operative part of which is as
follows:
                                                                                —     annul Regulation (EC) No 2081/2000; ( 1)
Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the
                                                                                —     declare that the Community is liable for the damage
coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-                           suffered by the appellant by reason of the fact that
employed commercial agents must be interpreted as meaning that
                                                                                imports of the products referred to in Regulation
self-employed agents appointed for the purpose of soliciting appli-
                                                                                (EC) No 2081/2000 have, since 1 October 2000,
cations for policies for life assurance, annuities or savings do not fall                 been prevented or restricted as a result of that
within its scope.
                                                                                regulation, and order the parties to reach agreement
                                                                                on the extent of the damage suffered by the appel-
                                                                                lant, and, if no agreement is reached on that matter,
                                                                                order that the procedure be continued within a
( 1) OJ C 84 of 6.4.2002.                                                                 period to be determined by the Court of Justice for
                                                                                the purpose of determining the extent of the damage,
                                                                                or at any rate order the Community to pay compen-
                                                                                sation for the provisionally estimated damage and
                                                                                for that still to be assessed; in the further alternative,
 ---pagebreak--- C 146/14                EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                          21.6.2003
            order the Community to pay compensation to be                 Pleas in law and main arguments
            determined on an equitable basis by the Court of
            Justice, plus annual interest of 8 % from the date of         —      Incorrect implementation of Article 5 of the Directive.
            the application at first instance to the date of full                The Law transposing Article 5 of Directive 93/13/EEC
            and final payment;                                                   into Spanish law fails to mention that the rule that the
                                                                                interpretation that is the most favourable to the consumer
3.     order the respondent to pay the costs of both sets of                     is to prevail is not to apply in the context of the
       proceedings, in accordance with Article 69(2) of the Rules                procedures laid down in Article 7(2) of the Directive
       of Procedure.                                                             (prohibitory actions). Thus a situation is created in which
                                                                                consumers run the risk that the interpretation rule may
                                                                                go counter to their interests, inasmuch as it will be an
                                                                                obstacle to the removal from contracts with consumers,
                                                                                by means of a prohibitory action, unclear terms which,
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                  according to a ‘normal’ interpretation, are unfair;
                                                                          —      incorrect implementation of Article 6(2) of the Directive:
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in                      by referring to the provision ‘in Article 5 of the 1980
Case C-41/03 P, it being understood that the present case                        Rome Convention on the Law applicable to Contractual
relates to Regulation (EC) No 2081/2000.                                         Obligations’, the Spanish Law limits the protection offered
                                                                                by the Directive to consumers, by introducing a twofold
                                                                                restriction. Thus, the Directive provides for the protection
( 1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2081/2000 of 29 September                     of all consumers in all contracts concluded with a seller
     2000 providing for the continued application of safeguard                   or supplier, whereas the Spanish Law provides such
     measures for imports from the overseas countries and territories            protection only for certain types of contract and only
     of sugar sector products with EC/OCT cumulation of origin                   where certain conditions are satisfied, a twofold restric-
     (OJ 2000 L 246, p. 64).                                                     tion prohibited by the Directive.
                                                                          (1 ) Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in
                                                                               consumer contracts (OJ L 95 of 21.4.1993, p. 29).
Action brought on 17 February 2003 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                                Spain
                                                                          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van
                           (Case C-70/03)                                 Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven by judgment of that Court
                                                                          of 7 January 2003 in the proceedings between A. Tempel-
                                                                          man and Directeur van de Rijksdienst voor de keuring
                          (2003/C 146/23)                                                          van Vee en Vlees
                                                                                (Case C-96/03)
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
                                                                                (2003/C 146/24)
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 Febru-
ary 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Isabel Martínez del Peral and Miguel França, of
its Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                          European Communities by judgment of the College van Beroep
                                                                          voor het Bedrijfsleven (Administrative Court for Trade and
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          Industry) of 7 January 2003, received at the Court Registry on
                                                                          4 March 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
1.     Declare that, by failing to transpose fully into its national      between A. Tempelman and Directeur van de Rijksdienst voor
       law Articles 5 and 6(2) of Directive 93/12/EEC (1) of              de keuring van Vee en Vlees on the following questions:
       5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, the
       Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under        1.     May a Member State derive from Community law the
       the Treaty and under that directive;
                                                                                power to decide to kill animals which are suspected of
                                                                                being infected or contaminated with the foot-and-mouth
2.     Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.                              virus?


title: Case T-180/05: Action brought on 28 April 2005 by Pia Landgren against the European Training Foundation

text:
               23.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/39

         Action brought on 28 April 2005 by Pia Landgren against the European Training Foundation
   (Case T-180/05)
   (2005/C 182/73)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 28 April 2005 by Pia Landgren, Turin (Italy), represented by Marc-Albert Lucas, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               annul the decision of 25 June 2004 of the former Director of the Foundation dismissing the applicant;

               2.

               annul, if necessary, the decision of 19 January 2005 of the Director of Training rejecting the complaint made by the applicant on 27 September against the first decision;

               3.

               order the Foundation to pay, in compensation for the material damage caused to her by the unlawfulness of the contested decisions, a sum equivalent to the salary and pension she would have received if she had been able to continue her career at the Foundation until the age of 65, reduced by the amount of the allowances for dismissal and unemployment and the pension she has received or will receive because of her dismissal;

               4.

               order the Foundation to pay the applicant a sum at the Court's discretion to make good the non-material damage caused to her by the unlawfulness of the contested decision;

               5.

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   According to the applicant, the Foundation has not established that the decision to dismiss the applicant is based on a valid ground in law, particularly as that decision is in apparent contradiction with the applicant's staff report for 2003.
   The applicant also claims that the real reason for her dismissal is manifestly unlawful and contrary to the interest of the service because it is based on a prior agreement that she would leave the Foundation after 31 December 2003.
   Moreover, the applicant submits that the ground for the contested decision is unlawful and arbitrary if the refusal of the Head of Department to retain her is based on adverse assessments made of her in the past.
   Finally, the applicant raises pleas of failure to state reasons, breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials and of the right to be heard and manifest errors of assessment, if the refusal of the Head of Department and/or the dismissal are based on professional failings within the EECA department or generally.


title: Case F-35/07: Action brought on 16 April 2007 — Klug v European Medicines Agency

text:
               23.6.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 140/45

         Action brought on 16 April 2007 — Klug v European Medicines Agency
   (Case F-35/07)
   (2007/C 140/72)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Bettina Klug (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: G. Grupp, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Medicines Agency
   Form of order sought

               —

               Order the defendant to extend the applicant's contract of employment of 7 February 2002,

               —

               order the defendant to pay the applicant damages for pain and suffering in the amount of EUR 200 000,

               —

               order the defendant to annul the applicant's staff report from 31 December 2004 to 31 December 2006 and to decide anew in the light of the findings of the Tribunal.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The action is based on Article 12(a) Title II of the Staff Regulations of Officials (harassment). It alleges incorrect exercise of discretion regarding the applicant's staff report, infringement of the Agency's procedural rules on drawing up a staff report, and, as a result, that the Agency unlawfully failed to extend the applicant's contract of employment.
   The applicant asserts in support of her action that owing to the harassment and lack of objectivity in the assessment of her work, her work deteriorated and thus her five-year contract was not extended.


title: Case C-318/15: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Piemonte — Italy) — Tecnoedi Costruzioni Srl v Comune di Fossano (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public works contracts — Directive 2004/18/EC — Article 7(c) — Threshold amount for public contracts — Threshold not reached — Abnormally low tenders — Automatic exclusion — Discretion of the contracting authority — Obligations of the contracting authority arising from freedom of establishment, freedom to provide services and the general principle of non-discrimination — Contracts which may be of certain cross-border interest)

text:
               28.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 441/3

      Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Piemonte — Italy) — Tecnoedi Costruzioni Srl v Comune di Fossano
      (Case C-318/15) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public works contracts - Directive 2004/18/EC - Article 7(c) - Threshold amount for public contracts - Threshold not reached - Abnormally low tenders - Automatic exclusion - Discretion of the contracting authority - Obligations of the contracting authority arising from freedom of establishment, freedom to provide services and the general principle of non-discrimination - Contracts which may be of certain cross-border interest))
      (2016/C 441/03)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Piemonte

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Tecnoedi Costruzioni Srl

         Defendant: Comune di Fossano

         Operative part of the judgment

      The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Piemonte (Piedmont Regional Administrative Court, Italy) by decision of 29 April 2015 is inadmissible.

         (1)  OJ C 311, 21.9.2015.


title: Case C-433/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v Acacia Srl (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Intellectual property — Community designs — Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Articles 81 and 82 — Action for a declaration of non-infringement — Jurisdiction of Community design courts of the Member State where the defendant is domiciled)

text:
               4.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 293/11

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v Acacia Srl
   (Case C-433/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Intellectual property - Community designs - Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Articles 81 and 82 - Action for a declaration of non-infringement - Jurisdiction of Community design courts of the Member State where the defendant is domiciled))
   (2017/C 293/15)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Corte suprema di cassazione

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Bayerische Motoren Werke AG

      Defendant: Acacia Srl

      Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               Article 24 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 must be interpreted to the effect that a challenge to the jurisdiction of the court seised, raised in the defendant’s first submission in the alternative to other objections of procedure raised in the same submission, cannot be considered to be acceptance of the jurisdiction of the court seised, and therefore does not lead to prorogation of jurisdiction pursuant to that article.

               2)

               Article 82 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs must be interpreted to the effect that actions for a declaration of non-infringement under Article 81(b) of that regulation must, when the defendant is domiciled in an EU Member State, be brought before the Community design courts of that Member State, except where there is prorogation of jurisdiction within the meaning of Article 23 or Article 24 of Regulation No 44/2001, and with the exception of the cases of litis pendens and related actions referred to in those regulations.

               3)

               The rule on jurisdiction in Article 5(3) of Regulation No 44/2001 does not apply to actions for a declaration of non-infringement under Article 81(b) of Regulation No 6/2002.

               4)

               The rule on jurisdiction set out in Article 5(3) of Regulation No 44/2001 does not apply to actions for a declaration of abuse of a dominant position and of unfair competition that are connected to actions for declaration of non-infringement of a Community design, in so far as granting those applications presupposes that the action for a declaration of non-infringement is allowed.

      (1)  OJ C 410, 7.11.2016.


title: Case T-209/02: Action brought on 5 July 2002 by Andreas Mausolf against Europol

text:
C 202/38               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     24.8.2002
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               The applicant claims that the Court should:
(1) annul the tacit rejection by Europol of the applicant’s               (1) annul the tacit rejection by Europol of the applicant’s
      complaint against the decision of 23 November 2001,                       complaint against the decision of 23 November 2001,
      and at the same time annul the contested decision of                      and at the same time annul the contested decision of
      23 November 2001;                                                         23 November 2001;
(2) order Europol, primarily, to award the applicant two                  (2) order Europol to award the applicant two additional
      additional salary increments, effective from 1 July 2001;                 salary increments, effective from 1 July 2001;
      alternatively, order Europol to award the applicant one
      additional salary increment, effective from 1 July 2001;            (3) order Europol to pay to the applicant, within 48 hours
(3) order Europol to pay to the applicant, within 48 hours                      after delivery of the judgment to be given in this case,
      after delivery of the judgment to be given in this case,                  what is due to him thereunder, together with interest at
      what is due to her thereunder, together with interest at                  the statutory rate prescribed by Netherlands law;
      the statutory rate prescribed by Netherlands law;
                                                                          (4) order Europol to indemnify the applicant in respect of
(4) order Europol to pay to the applicant, within 48 hours                      the costs of the proceedings.
      after delivery of the judgment to be given in this case, the
      sum of 1 000 euros by way of compensation for the non-
      material damage suffered by her;
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
(5) order Europol to indemnify the applicant in respect of
      the costs of the proceedings.
                                                                          The applicant is employed at Europol. The contested decision
                                                                          adopted by the defendant did not award the applicant a salary
                                                                          increase to which he considers himself to be entitled.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          The applicant claims that the decision in question infringes
The applicant is employed at Europol. The contested decision
                                                                          Article 29 of the Europol Staff Regulations. According to the
adopted by the defendant did not award the applicant a salary
                                                                          applicant, the Management Board has failed to lay down the
increase to which she considers herself to be entitled.
                                                                          necessary rules for the award of salary increases in accordance
                                                                          with that article. The applicant further pleads that the Director
The applicant claims that the decision in question infringes              exceeded his discretionary powers, inasmuch as the decision-
Article 29 of the Europol Staff Regulations. According to the             making procedure does not satisfy the requirements of regard
applicant, the Management Board has failed to lay down the                for the welfare and interests of staff and of impartiality. Lastly,
necessary rules for the award of salary increases in accordance           the applicant pleads infringement of the principles of equal
with that article. The applicant further pleads that the Director         treatment and of the protection of legitimate expectations.
exceeded his discretionary powers, inasmuch as the decision-
making procedure does not satisfy the requirements of regard
for the welfare and interests of staff and of impartiality. Lastly,
the applicant pleads infringement of the principles of equal
treatment and of the protection of legitimate expectations.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-258/97 (1)
                                                                                (2002/C 202/65)
Action brought on 5 July 2002 by Andreas Mausolf
                         against Europol                                                     (Language of the Case: Italian)
                         (Case T-209/02)
                         (2002/C 202/64)                                  By order of 12 June 2002 the President of the Fourth Chamber
                                                                          of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                          ordered the removal from the register of Case T-258/97:
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                          Società Eridania SpA and Others v Council of the European
                                                                          Union.
An action against Europol was brought before the Court of
First Instance of the European Communities on 5 July 2002                 (1) OJ C 357 of 22.11.1997.
by Andreas Mausolf, residing at Leiden (Netherlands), rep-
resented by Maria Franciscus Baltussen and Pauline de Casparis,
lawyers.


title: Case C-623/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 18 January 2017 — Toshiba Corp. v European Commission (Appeal — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Global market for cathode ray tubes for television sets and computer monitors — Agreements and concerted practices on pricing, market sharing, customer allocation and output limitation — Concept of ‘economic unit’ between two companies — Concept of ‘decisive influence’ — Joint control by two parent companies — Distortion of evidence)

text:
               6.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 70/7

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 18 January 2017 — Toshiba Corp. v European Commission
   (Case C-623/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Global market for cathode ray tubes for television sets and computer monitors - Agreements and concerted practices on pricing, market sharing, customer allocation and output limitation - Concept of ‘economic unit’ between two companies - Concept of ‘decisive influence’ - Joint control by two parent companies - Distortion of evidence))
   (2017/C 070/10)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Toshiba Corp. (represented by: J.F. MacLennan, Solicitor, A. Schulz, Rechtsanwalt, J. Jourdan, avocat, and A. Kadri, Solicitor)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Biolan and V. Bottka, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Toshiba Corp. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 27, 25.1.2016.


title: Case C-6/06 P: Appeal brought on  9 January 2006  by Cofradía de pescadores  San Pedro  de Bermeo and Others against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of  19 October 2005  in Case T-415/03 Cofradía de pescadores  San Pedro  de Bermeo and Others v Council of the European Union, supported by the Commission of the European Communities and the French Republic

text:
               11.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 60/25

         Appeal brought on 9 January 2006 by Cofradía de pescadores ‘San Pedro’ de Bermeo and Others against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 19 October 2005 in Case T-415/03 Cofradía de pescadores ‘San Pedro’ de Bermeo and Others v Council of the European Union, supported by the Commission of the European Communities and the French Republic
   (Case C-6/06 P)
   (2006/C 60/48)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   An appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 19 October 2005 in Case T-415/03 Cofradía de pescadores ‘San Pedro’ de Bermeo and Others v Council of the European Union, supported by the Commission of the European Communities and the French Republic, was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 9 January 2006 by Cofradía de pescadores ‘San Pedro’ de Bermeo and Others, represented by E. Garayar Gutiérrez, G. Martínez-Villaseñor, A. García Castillo and M. Troncoso Ferrer, abogados.
   The appellants claim that the Court should:

               (1)

               Declare the present appeal admissible;

               (2)

               Therefore, set aside in its entirety the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 October 2005 in Case T-415/03;

               (3)

               Consider the forms of order sought by the appellants at first instance, namely that it should:

                           —

                           Declare that the Community incurred non-contractual liability for removing part of the share of the Total Allowable Catch for anchovy allocated to Spain and the fleet authorised to fish for anchovy in ICES area VIII during the years 1996 to 2001, by the transfer, authorised by the Council of the European Union in Regulations Nos 3074/95 (1), 390/97 (2), 45/98 (3), 48/1999 (4) and 2848/2000 (5), of Portugal's quota in ICES area IX to be fished by France in ICES area VIII, in breach of: Article 161(1)(f) of the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic to the European Communities and of the principle of relative stability; and of the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations.

                           —

                           Order the Community, represented by the Council, to compensate the appellants for the certain and actual loss suffered as a consequence of the Council's acts, loss which includes both damage sustained and loss of profit, as referred to in this appeal and its annexes;

                           —

                           Order the Community, represented by the Council, to pay any default interest.

               (4)

               Order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The appellants have brought their appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 October 2005 because that Court dismissed their action for a declaration of non-contractual liability which they had brought against the Council of the European Union to obtain compensation for the loss suffered as a result of the Council's authorisation of the transfer to the French Republic of part of the anchovy quota allocated to the Portuguese Republic.
   The appellants consider that the Court of First Instance erred in law in its assessment of whether there had been a sufficiently serious breach of a higher-ranking rule of law and of the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations. In the view of the appellants, and contrary to what was held by the Court of First Instance, the Council did not have the discretion attributed to it by that Court, and approved the transfer of the fishing quotas in breach of the rules governing procedure and competence laid down for it by the Act of Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and Regulations Nos 685/95 (6) and 3760/92 (7).
   The appellants consider that the Court of First Instance also erred in law in denying that the principle of relative stability could confer rights on individuals. If that were the case, it would render the Common Fisheries Policy meaningless and infringe the appellants' right to effective legal protection, in breach of what the Court of First Instance itself has held.
   Lastly, the appellants allege that the Court of First Instance infringed their rights of defence, since not only did it fail to take account of the reports produced at the proceedings when the damage suffered as a consequence of the Council's acts was being assessed, it also rejected as not having been submitted at the appropriate time a request for measures of enquiry, which by definition the appellants could only make in the course of the proceedings.
   For all these reasons, the appellants claim that the Court of Justice of the European Communities should declare the ruling given by the Court of First Instance in its judgment of 19 October 2005 to be in breach of the law and declare that the Community incurred extra-contractual liability by effecting between 1995 and 2000 a transfer of fishing quotas from Portugal to France which the Court of Justice itself had already declared to be in breach of the law.

      (1)  Council Regulation of 22 December 1995 fixing, for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, the total allowable catches for 1996 and certain conditions under which they may be fished OJ 1995 L 330, p. 1.

      (2)  Council Regulation of 20 December 1996 fixing, for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, the total allowable catches for 1997 and certain conditions under which they may be fished OJ 1997 L 66, p. 1.

      (3)  Council Regulation of 19 December 1997 fixing, for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, the total allowable catches for 1998 and certain conditions under which they may be fished OJ 1998 L 12, p. 1.

      (4)  Council Regulation of 18 December 1998 fixing, for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, the total allowable catches for 1999 and certain conditions under which they may be fished OJ 1999 L 13, p. 1.

      (5)  Council Regulation of 15 December 2000 fixing for 2001 the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Community waters and, for Community vessels, in waters where limitations in catch are required OJ 2000 L 334, p. 1.

      (6)  Council Regulation of 27 March 1995 on the management of the fishing effort relating to certain Community fishing areas and resources OJ 1995 L 71, p. 5.

      (7)  Council Regulation of 20 December 1992 establishing a Community system for fisheries and aquaculture OJ 1992 L 389, p. 1.


title: Case C-396/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland) lodged on 27 August 2007 — Mirja Juuri v Fazer Amica Oy

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/30

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland) lodged on 27 August 2007 — Mirja Juuri v Fazer Amica Oy
   (Case C-396/07)
   (2007/C 269/53)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   Referring court
   Korkein oikeus
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Mirja Juuri

      Defendant: Fazer Amica Oy
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 4(2) of Council Directive 2001/23/EC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a Member State must, in a situation in which an employee has himself given notice to terminate his contract of employment after his working conditions have become substantially worse following the transfer of a business, in its law guarantee the employee the right to obtain financial compensation from the employer in the same way as in the case where the employer has unlawfully terminated the employment contract, having regard to the fact that the employer has, as permitted by Article 3(3) of the directive, observed a collective agreement, binding on the transferor and guaranteeing the employee better working conditions, only until its expiry and the worsening of the working conditions arises from that?

               2.

               If the employer's responsibility in accordance with the directive is not as extensive as described in Question 1, must the responsibility of the employer nevertheless be implemented by providing compensation, for example, for pay and other benefits for the notice period to be observed by the employer?

      (1)  Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses OJ L 82, 22 March 2001, p. 16.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 27 February 2003 in Case C-320/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Lübeck): Wiebke Busch v Klinikum Neustadt GmbH & Co. Betriebs-KG (Equal treatment for men and women — Article 2(1) of Directive 76/207/EEC — Protection of pregnant women)

text:
26.4.2003                EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                               C 101/7
(Rapporteur) and A. Rosas, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General;                (Agents: K.-D. Borchardt and M. Niejahr), which contends that
L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given             the Court — composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, (President),
a judgment on 25 February 2003, in which it:                                  J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and
                                                                              C.W.A. Timmermans, (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann,
                                                                              D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, P. Jann and V. Skouris, F. Macken
1.    Declares that, by introducing and maintaining in force rate-            and N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and
      freezing rules applicable to all contracts of insurance in respect      A. Rosas, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass,
      of third-party liability arising from the use of motor vehicles in
                                                                              Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 March 2003, in which it:
      relation to risks situated within Italian territory, without
      distinguishing between insurance companies having their head
      office in Italy and those conducting their business in Italy            1.    Dismisses the appeal;
      through branch offices or under the freedom to provide services,
      in breach of the principle of freedom to set premiums referred to
      in Articles 6, 29 and 39 of Council Directive 92/49/EEC of              2.    Orders T Port GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.
      18 June 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and
      administrative provisions relating to direct insurance other than
      life assurance and amending Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/               (1 ) OJ C 245 of 1 September 2001.
      357/EEC (third non-life insurance Directive), the Italian
      Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;
3.    Orders each party to bear its own costs.
( 1) OJ C 134 of 5.5.2001.                                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 27 February 2003
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       in Case C-320/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                              the Arbeitsgericht Lübeck): Wiebke Busch v Klinikum
                                                                                Neustadt GmbH & Co. Betriebs-KG (1)
                          of 6 March 2003
                                                                              (Equal treatment for men and women — Article 2(1) of
in Case C-213/01 P: T Port GmbH & Co. KG v Commission
                                                                                Directive 76/207/EEC — Protection of pregnant women)
                of the European Communities ( 1)
(Appeal — Bananas — Imports from ACP States and                                                         (2003/C 101/13)
non-member countries — Calculation of annual reference
quantity allocated to operators — Imports in accordance
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
with interim measures ordered by a national court in
       interlocutory proceedings — Action for damages)
                                                                              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                           (2003/C 101/12)                                                       in the European Court Reports)
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                              In Case C-320/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published        EC by the Arbeitsgericht Lübeck (Germany) for a preliminary
                    in the European Court Reports)                            ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
                                                                              Wiebke Busch and Klinikum Neustadt GmbH & Co. Betriebs-
                                                                              KG, on the interpretation of Article 2(1) of Council Directive
                                                                              76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the
In Case C-213/01 P: T Port GmbH & Co. KG, established in                      principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards
Hamburg (Germany) (lawyer: G. Meier) — appeal against the                     access to employment, vocational training and promotion,
judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of                    and working conditions (OJ 1976 L 39, p. 40), the Court (Fifth
20 March 2001 in Case T-52/99 (ECR II-981), seeking to have                   Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), President
that judgment set aside in part, the other party to the                       of the Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans, P. Jann, S. von Bahr
proceedings being Commission of the European Communities,                     and A. Rosas, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate
 ---pagebreak--- C 101/8                    EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                               26.4.2003
General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Regis-                 (Agent: C. Pochet): Application for a declaration that, in so far
trar, has given a judgment on 27 February 2003, in which it                    as the Région flamande (Flemish Region) has failed to transpose
has ruled:                                                                     Article 4(1) and (2) of and Annex I to Council Directive 79/
                                                                               409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds
                                                                               (OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1), to demarcate special protection areas
1.     Article 2(1) of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February              within its territory capable of being relied upon as against
       1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment          third parties, and to adopt the measures necessary to ensure
       for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational           that the classification of a site as a special protection area
       training and promotion, and working conditions is to be                 automatically and simultaneously entails the application of
       interpreted as precluding a requirement that an employee who,           a system of protection and conservation complying with
       with the consent of her employer, wishes to return to work              Community law, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil
       before the end of her parental leave must inform her employer           its obligations under Article 4(1) and (2) in conjunction with
       that she is pregnant in the event that, because of certain              Article 4(4), as partially amended, of Directive 79/409 in
       legislative prohibitions, she will be unable to carry out all of her    accordance with Article 7 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of
       duties.                                                                 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of
                                                                               wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7), by Article 6(2) to
                                                                               (4) of the latter directive, the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed
2.     Article 2(1) of Directive 76/207 is to be interpreted as
                                                                               of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen,
       precluding an employer from contesting under national law the
                                                                               C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), F. Macken and J.N. Cunha Rodri-
       consent it gave to the reinstatement of an employee to return
                                                                               gues, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,
       before the end of her parental leave on the grounds that it was
       in error as to her being pregnant.                                      has given a judgment on 27 February 2003, in which it:
( 1) OJ C 303 of 27.10.2001.
                                                                               1.    Declares that, in so far as the Région flamande has failed to
                                                                                transpose Article 4(1) and (2) of and Annex I to Council
                                                                                Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of
                                                                                wild birds, to demarcate special protection areas within its
                                                                                territory capable of being relied upon as against third parties,
                                                                                and to adopt the measures necessary to ensure that the
                                                                                classification of a site as a special protection area automatically
                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                            and simultaneously entails the application of a system of
                                                                                protection and conservation complying with Community law,
                                                                                the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations
                            (Sixth Chamber)                                          under Article 4(1) and (2) of Directive 79/409 and the first
                                                                                sentence of Article 4(4) thereof, as amended, in accordance with
                                                                                Article 7 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992
                          of 27 February 2003                                        on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and
                                                                                flora, by Article 6(2) to (4) of the latter directive;
in Case C-415/01: Commission of the European Communi-
                    ties v Kingdom of Belgium (1)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                         2.    Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
     Conservation of wild birds — Special protection areas)
                             (2003/C 101/14)
                       (Language of the case: French)
                                                                               (1 ) OJ C 369 of 22.12.2001.
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                      in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-415/01, Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: G. Valero Jordana and J. Adda) v Kingdom of Belgium


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 December 2001 in Case C-372/00: Commission of the European Communities v Ireland (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 96/48/EC — Interoperability of the trans-European high-speed rail system)

text:
C 44/6                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          16.2.2002
European Communities (Fourth Chamber) of 14 July 2000 in                 1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
Case T-82/99 Cwik v Commission [2000] ECR-SC I-A-155                           administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council
and II-713, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other                 Directive 96/48/EC of 23 July 1996 on the interoperability of
party to the proceedings being: Michael Cwik, an official of                   the trans-European high-speed rail system, Ireland has failed to
the Commission of the European Communities, residing in                        fulfil its obligations under that directive.
Brussels (Belgium), represented by N. Lhoëst, avocat — the
Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, P. Jann,        2.    Orders Ireland to pay the costs.
F. Macken, N. Colneric and S. von Bahr (Presidents of
Chambers), A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet, L. Sevón, M. Wathe-
let (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen and V. Skouris, Judges; Advocate          (1) OJ C 355, 9.12.2000.
General: D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, L. Hewlett, Administrator,
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 December 2001,
in which it:
1.    Dismisses the appeal;
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
2.    Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay
      the costs.
                                                                                (Third Chamber)
(1) OJ C 335, 25.11.2000.                                                                         of 13 December 2001
                                                                         in Case C-446/00 P: Pascual Juan Cubero Vermurie v
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                                (Appeal — Officials — Promotions — Mobility)
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                                (2002/C 44/11)
                        (First Chamber)                                                         (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     of 13 December 2001
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
in Case C-372/00: Commission of the European Communi-
                         ties v Ireland (1)
                                                                         In Case C-446/00: Pascual Juan Cubero Vermurie, an official
                                                                         of the Commission of the European Communities, residing in
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                   Brussels (Belgium), represented by E. Boigelot, avocat —
Directive 96/48/EC — Interoperability of the trans-Euro-                 APPEAL against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
                  pean high-speed rail system)                           the European Communities (Fifth Chamber) of 3 October
                                                                         2000 in Case T-187/98 Cubero Vermurie v Commission
                                                                         [2000] ECR I-A-195 and II-885, seeking to have that judgment
                         (2002/C 44/10)                                  set aside and the same form of order as that sought by the
                                                                         appellant at first instance, the other party to the proceedings
                   (Language of the case: English)                       being: Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
                                                                         C. Berardis-Kayser, assisted by B. Wägenbaur) — the Court
                                                                         (Third Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, acting for the
                                                                         President of the Third Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet and J.N. Cunha
                                                                         Rodrigues (Rapporteur), Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate Gen-
In Case C-372/00: Commission of the European Communities
                                                                         eral; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
(Agent: M. Wolfcarius) v Ireland (Agent: D.J. O’Hagan) —
                                                                         judgment on 13 December 2001, in which it:
application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws,
regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply
with Council Directive 96/48/EC of 23 July 1996 on the                   1.    Dismisses the appeal;
interoperability of the trans-European high-speed rail system
(OJ 1996 L 235, p. 6), Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations      2.    Orders Mr Cubero Vermurie to pay the costs.
under that directive — the Court (First Chamber), composed
of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber, L. Sevón (Rapporteur)
and M. Wathelet, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General;                (1) OJ C 45, 10.2.2001.
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 December
2001, in which it:


title: Case T-725/15: Action brought on 11 December 2015 — Chemtura Netherlands/EFSA

text:
               22.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 68/33

         Action brought on 11 December 2015 — Chemtura Netherlands/EFSA
   (Case T-725/15)
   (2016/C 068/43)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Chemtura Netherlands (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Food Safety Authority

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare its application admissible and well-founded;

               —

               annul the European Food Safety Authority (‘EFSA’) Decision of 10 December 2015 concerning the publication of certain parts of the EFSA Conclusion on the Peer Review on the review of the approval of the active substance diflubenzuron regarding the metabolite PCA in respect of which the applicant claimed confidentiality pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (OJ 2009 L 309, p. 1);

               —

               order the defendant to pay all the costs and expenses of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging an infringement of Regulation 1107/2009 and the fundamental right to the protection of business secrets.

                           —

                           The applicant questions the legal basis on which the defendant concluded that it had a duty to publish its conclusions. Even if the publication of EFSA conclusions taken under Article 21 of Regulation 1107/2009 was legitimate, the defendant has violated Article 63 of Regulation 1107/2009 by publishing confidential information.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of appraisal

                           —

                           The applicant submits that the defendant based its decision on an inaccurate understanding of the facts and related science, which led to a manifest error of appraisal of their confidentiality claims.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging a breach of fundamental principles of EU law: right of defence and the principle of sound administration

                           —

                           The applicant was not given a chance to comment on documents on which the EFSA’s conclusions are based.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging a breach of EFSA’s own duties

                           —

                           The defendant has not based its assessment on all available scientific evidence, whereas it is under an obligation to produce work of the highest scientific quality.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging a breach of legitimate expectations

                           —

                           The applicant is in ongoing discussions with the Commission and correspondence from the Commission reflects that the applicant would be given a chance to comment on the EFSA conclusions as part of the Commission’s review process. The applicant’s comments should be taken into account before the publication of the EFSA conclusion.


title: Case T-721/16: Action brought on 7 October 2016 — Luxottica Group v EUIPO — Chen (BeyBeni)

text:
               5.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 454/31

      Action brought on 7 October 2016 — Luxottica Group v EUIPO — Chen (BeyBeni)
      (Case T-721/16)
      (2016/C 454/53)
      Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: Luxottica Group S.p.A. (Milan, Italy) (represented by: E.M. Ochoa Santamaría and I. Aparicio Martínez, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Xian Chen (Wenzhou, China)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

         Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word element ‘BeyBeni’ — Application for registration No 12 511 317

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 June 2016 in Case R 675/2015-5

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  uphold the application by annulling the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 June 2016 in Case R 675/2015-5 and by refusing registration of the EU trade mark No 12 511 317 ‘BeyBeni’ pursuant to the provisions of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009;

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 in respect of the analysis of the conditions for its application.

                  —

                  Infringement of Articles 63(2) and 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 in respect of a possible infringement of the right of the defence and the right to be heard at the appeal stage.


title: Case T-23/02: Action brought on 7 February 2002 by Sumika Fine Chemicals Co. Ltd. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
4.5.2002                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 109/53
      entitlement of the defendant to investigate cartel cases and        Chemicals Co. Ltd., represented by Mr. Martin Klusmann
      to adopt prohibition Decisions, the rules on limitation             and Ms Vanessa Turner of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer,
      in Regulation No. 2988/74 (2) should be considered                  Düsseldorf (Germany).
      applicable to declaratory prohibition decisions.
—     The adoption of a prohibition decision is time-barred               The applicant claims that the Court should:
      under general principles of Community Law. It is stated
      in this regard that where there is no doubt that the alleged        —     annul the Defendant’s Decision C(2001)3695 final of
      conduct was terminated more than five years before an                     21 November 2001 in Case No. COMP/E-1/37.512 —
      investigation was opened, there is no need and no                         Vitamins, so far as Sumika Fine Chemicals Co. Ltd. is
      justification for a declaratory decision, because there is                concerned;
      no place for a cease and desist order, as contained in
      Article 2 of the contested Decision, or any other form of           —     order the Defendant to pay the costs.
      penalty to be imposed on the applicant by the defendant.
      Alternatively, the rationale for limitation periods in the
      European Union is that after a certain period of time it is
      in the interest of the proper functioning of the legal              Pleas in law and main arguments
      system that infringements of the law should no longer be
      investigated or lead to any form of ‘punishment’ of the
      party concerned.                                                    The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied
                                                                          upon in Case T-22/02 (Sumitomo Chemical/Commission, not
                                                                          yet published in the OJ).
—     The defendant was not competent within the meaning of
      the second paragraph of Article 230 EC to adopt the
      contested Decision, as it thereby exceeded its powers
      under the Treaty and Regulation No. 17/62. The defend-
      ant is not empowered by Article 3 of Regulation No. 17,
      or by any other provision, to adopt a declaratory decision
      where the infringement has already been terminated
      outside the limitation period provided for in Article 1 of          Action brought on 7 February 2002 by Maddalena Lebe-
      Regulation No. 2988/74.                                             def-Caponi against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
                                                                                (Case T-24/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 109/103)
(1) Notice not yet published in the OJ.
(2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2988/74 of 26 November 1974
    concerning limitation periods in proceedings and the enforcement                         (Language of the case: French)
    of actions under the rules of the European Economic Community
    relating to transport and competition (OJ L 319, 29.11.1974,
    p. 1).
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 7 February 2002 by Maddalena
                                                                          Lebedef-Caponi, residing at Senningerberg (Grand Duchy of
                                                                          Luxembourg), represented by Gilles Bounéou, lawyer, with an
                                                                          address for service in Luxembourg.
Action brought on 7 February 2002 by Sumika Fine
Chemicals Co. Ltd. against the Commission of the Euro-                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
                        pean Communities
                                                                          —     annul the express decision No 40263 of 6 November
                           (Case T-23/02)                                       2001 by which the appointing authority replied to the
                                                                                applicant’s complaint No 334/01 of 18 July 2001 by
                                                                                fixing the compensation for the non-material damage
                         (2002/C 109/102)                                       suffered by her in the sum of 1 500 euros;
                    (Language of the case: English)                       —     award the applicant the sum of BEF 800 000, assessed as
                                                                                amounting now to the sum of BEF 1 000 000, by way of
                                                                                compensation for the non-material damage suffered as a
                                                                                result of the lateness in drawing up her staff report
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                       (placed belatedly in her personal file) for the period 1993-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                      1995 and the lateness in drawing up her staff reports for
European Communities on 7 February 2002 by Sumika Fine                          the periods 1995-1997 and 1997-1999;


title: Case T-691/13: Judgment of the General Court of 17 September 2015 — Ricoh Belgium v Council (Public service and supply contracts — Tender procedure — Black and white multifunction printers and maintenance services — Rejection of the bid made by a tenderer — Obligation to state reasons — Transparency)

text:
               3.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 363/34

         Judgment of the General Court of 17 September 2015 — Ricoh Belgium v Council
   (Case T-691/13) (1)

   ((Public service and supply contracts - Tender procedure - Black and white multifunction printers and maintenance services - Rejection of the bid made by a tenderer - Obligation to state reasons - Transparency))
   (2015/C 363/42)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Ricoh Belgium NV (Vilvoorde, Belgium) (represented by: N. Braeckevelt and A. De Visscher, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Vitsentzatos and K. Michoel, acting as Agents, and B. Van Vooren and J. Weytjens, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision of the Council of 29 October 2013 not to accept the tender submitted by the applicant in tendering procedure UCA 034/13, relating to the purchase or hire of black and white multifunction printers (MFPs) and associated maintenance services in the buildings occupied by the General Secretariat of the Council (OJ 2013/S 83-138901), and to award the contract to another tenderer.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Council of 29 October 2013 not to accept the tender submitted by the applicant in tendering procedure UCA 034/13, relating to the purchase or hire of black and white multifunction printers (MFPs) and associated maintenance services in the buildings occupied by the General Secretariat of the Council in so far as it concerns lot No 4;

               2.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 52, 22.2.2014.


title: Case T-241/06: Order of the Court of First Instance of 17 November 2008 — Reitz and von Gadomski v OHIM (CMD-CLINIC)

text:
               10.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/43

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 17 November 2008 — Reitz and von Gadomski v OHIM (CMD-CLINIC)
   (Case T-241/06) (1)

   (2009/C 6/85)

      Language of the case: German

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

      (1)  OJ C 261, 28.10.2006.