title: Case T-89/13 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 11 March 2013 — Calestep v ECHA (Application for interim measures — Fees and charges payable to ECHA — Reduced fees granted to small enterprises — Verification by ECHA of the declaration relating to the size of the enterprise — Decision ordering the recovery of the uncollected amount of the total fees payable — Application for suspension of operation of the decision — Disregard of the procedural requirements — Inadmissibility)

text:
               4.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/21

         Order of the President of the General Court of 11 March 2013 — Calestep v ECHA
   (Case T-89/13 R)
   (Application for interim measures - Fees and charges payable to ECHA - Reduced fees granted to small enterprises - Verification by ECHA of the declaration relating to the size of the enterprise - Decision ordering the recovery of the uncollected amount of the total fees payable - Application for suspension of operation of the decision - Disregard of the procedural requirements - Inadmissibility)
   2013/C 129/43
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Calestep (Estepa, Spain) (represented by: E. Cabezas Mateos, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: M. Heikkilä, A. Iber and C. Jacquet, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for suspension of operation of the payment reminders of 23 January and 8 February 2013 addressed by ECHA to the applicant on the ground that it did not meet the conditions to benefit from the reduction of fees provided for small enterprises.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 October 2001 in Case T-111/00: British American Tobacco International (Investments) Ltd v Commission of the European Communities (Decision 94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom — Public access to Commission documents — Minutes of the Committee on Excise Duties — Partial access — Exception — Identities of national delegations — Protection of an institution's interest in the confidentiality of its proceedings)

text:
C 3/26                   EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                   5.1.2002
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                        of 10 October 2001                                                      of 19 September 2001
in Case T-111/00: British American Tobacco International                   in Case T-117/00: Procter & Gamble Company v Office
(Investments) Ltd v Commission of the European Com-                        for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
                              munities (1)                                                     and Designs) (OHIM) (1)
                                                                           (Community trade mark — Shape of a product for washing
(Decision 94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom — Public access to
                                                                           machines or dishwashers — Three-dimensional mark —
Commission documents — Minutes of the Committee on
                                                                           Absolute ground for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation
Excise Duties — Partial access — Exception — Identities of
                                                                                (EC) No 40/94)
national delegations — Protection of an institution’s interest
            in the confidentiality of its proceedings)
                                                                                (2002/C 3/44)
                            (2002/C 3/43)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                           In Case T-117/00: Procter & Gamble Company, established in
                                                                           Cincinnati, Ohio (United States of America), represented by
In Case T-111/00: British American Tobacco International                   C.J.J.C. van Nispen and G. Kuipers, lawyers, with an address
(Investments) Ltd, established in London (United Kingdom),                 for service in Luxembourg, against Office for Harmonisation
represented by S. Crosby, Solicitor, against Commission of the             in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
European Communities (Agents: U. Wölker and X. Lewis) —                    (Agents: A. von Mühlendahl, D. Schennen and C. Røhl Søberg)
application for annulment of the Commission’s decision                     — application brought against the decision of the First Board
partially refusing an application for access to certain minutes            of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
of the Committee on Excise Duties — the Court of First                     Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 March 2000 (Case
Instance (First Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President,            R-509/1999-1), which was notified to the applicant on
M. Vilaras and N.J. Forwood, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has               13 March 2000 — the Court of First Instance (Second
given a judgment on 10 October 2001, in which it:                          Chamber), composed of A.W.H. Meij, President, A. Potocki
                                                                           and J. Pirrung, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the
                                                                           Registrar, has given a judgment on 19 September 2001, in
                                                                           which it:
1.    Annuls the Commission’s decision partially to reject an appli-
      cation for access to certain minutes of the Committee on Excise
      Duties.
                                                                           1.    Dismisses the action;
2.    Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                           2.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
(1) OJ C 192 of 8.7.2000.                                                  (1) OJ C 192 of 8.7.2000.


title: Case T-461/09: Judgment of the General Court of 5 May 2011 — CheapFlights International v OHIM — Cheapflights (Cheapflights with a black aeroplane) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark Cheapflights with a black aeroplane — Earlier international figurative mark CheapFlights — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               25.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 186/22

         Judgment of the General Court of 5 May 2011 — CheapFlights International v OHIM — Cheapflights (Cheapflights with a black aeroplane)
   (Case T-461/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark Cheapflights with a black aeroplane - Earlier international figurative mark CheapFlights - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2011/C 186/41
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: CheapFlights International Ltd (Ballybofey, Ireland) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Cheapflights Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Edenborough, QC)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 31 August 2009 (Case R 1607/2007-4), relating to opposition proceedings between CheapFlights International Ltd and Cheapflights Ltd

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 31 August 2009 (Case R 1607/2007-4);

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders OHIM and Cheapflights Ltd to pay the costs including those incurred by CheapFlights International Ltd in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 24, 30.1.2010.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of  15 December 2005  in Case C-88/05: Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2002/59/EC — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               11.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 36/17

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 15 December 2005
   in Case C-88/05: Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2002/59/EC - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   (2006/C 36/33)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   In Case C-88/05 Commission of the European Communities (Agents: M. Huttunen and K. Simonsson) v Republic of Finland (Agent: A. Guimaraes-Purokoski) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to comply with obligations, brought on 18 February 2005 — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of J. Makarczyk, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen and J. Klučka (Rapporteur), Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 15 December 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2002 establishing a Community vessel traffic monitoring and information system and repealing Council Directive 93/75/EEC, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 93 of 16.04.2005


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arrondissementsrechtbank te Roermond by order of that court of 3 December 1998 in the case of R. J. de Laat against Board of the Landelijk Instituut Sociale Verzekeringen (Case C-444/98)

text:
20.2.1999            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 48/13
Reference      for    a    preliminary     ruling   by    the       5. Alternatively, when determining whether the criterion
Arrondissementsrechtbank te Roermond by order of that                    referred to in Question 3 above is fulfilled, should a
court of 3 December 1998 in the case of R. J. de Laat                    more formal test be applied, such as, for example,
against Board of the Landelijk Instituut Sociale                         whether or not there is a continuing employment
                         Verzekeringen                                   relationship for the purposes of labour law?
                       (Case C-444/98)
                                                                    6. Having regard to the answers to the above questions,
                        (1999/C 48/22)                                   is a frontier worker who, immediately following his
                                                                         dismissal from full-time employment, commences
                                                                         work with the same employer under a part-time
                                                                         contract of employment to be regarded as a partially
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice                          unemployed frontier worker within the meaning of
of the European Communities by order of the                              Article 71(1)(a)(i) of the Regulation or as a wholly
Arrondissementsrechtbank te Roermond (District Court,                    unemployed frontier worker within the meaning of
Roermond) of 3 December 1998, received at the Court                      Article 71(1)(a)(ii) of the Regulation?
Registry on 7 December 1998, for a preliminary ruling in
the case of R. J. de Laat against Board of the Landelijk
                                                                    (1) Updated version, OJ L 28, 30.1.1997, p. 1.
Instituut Sociale Verzekeringen on the following questions:
1. When determining whether a frontier worker is
    partially unemployed and therefore on the basis of
    Article 71(1)(a)(i) of Council Regulation (EEC)                 Reference      for    a     preliminary     ruling  by    the
    No 1408/71 (1) may claim benefit from the competent             Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg by order of
    Member State, or is wholly unemployed and therefore             that court of 5 November 1998 in the case of Bayram Ali
    on the basis of Article 71(1)(a)(ii) of Regulation (EEC)        Lotoz v. Landeshauptstadt Stuttgart Ð Amt für öffentliche
    No 1408/71 may claim benefit from the Member State                                          Ordnung
    in which he resides, is it relevant whether under the
    national legislation of the competent Member State or                                   (Case C-445/98)
    of the Member State in which he resides the worker in                                    (1999/C 48/23)
    question is to be regarded as partially or wholly
    unemployed or should partially unemployed' and
    wholly unemployed' be given a univocal Ð                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice
    Community Ð construction?                                       of the European Communities by order of the
                                                                    Verwaltungsgerichtshof         Baden-Württemberg      (Higher
                                                                    Administrative Court, Baden-Württemberg) of 5 November
                                                                    1998, received at the Court Registry on 7 December 1998,
2. If the classification under national law is relevant,
                                                                    for a preliminary ruling in the case of Bayram Ali Lotoz
    which classification should prevail where the view
                                                                    against Landeshauptstadt Stuttgart Ð Amt für öffentliche
    adopted under the law of the competent Member State
                                                                    Ordnung (City of Stuttgart, Public Order Department) on
    and that under the law of the Member State in which
                                                                    the following questions:
    the worker resides lead to different results?
                                                                    1. Does a family member who has been legally resident
                                                                         with a Turkish worker for five years within the
3. If the classification under national law is irrelevant
                                                                         meaning of the second indent of the first paragraph of
    and partially unemployed' or wholly unemployed'
                                                                         Article 7 of Decision No 1/80, and who does not fulfil
    must be given a univocal Ð Community Ð
                                                                         the requirements for availing himself of the rights
    construction, what criterion should then be applied?
                                                                         under Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80, continue to
                                                                         enjoy the entitlement under the second indent of the
                                                                         first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision 1/80 in
4. Is it of decisive importance in that regard whether or                circumstances where, because of an officially certified
    not there is a continuing link with the State of                     incapacity for work, the Turkish worker now merely
    employment, and if so, what conditions must be                       draws a pension and engages in minor employment as
    satisfied for there to be such a link? Is there such a               an auxiliary in a hotel/restaurant?
    link if:
                                                                    2. Does a family member who has been legally resident
                                                                         with the Turkish worker for five years within the
    (a) there is a concrete prospect that the employee may               meaning of the second indent of the first paragraph of
         be re-employed by the former employer or                        Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 continue, after those
                                                                         five years, to be legally resident within the meaning of
                                                                         that provision if, under the domestic law of the
    (b) the employee continues to work in the same State,                Member State, his residence is deemed to be
         even though to a lesser extent?                                 temporarily authorised only on the basis of an


title: Case C-111/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof, Austria, by order of that court of 22 February 2001 in the case of Gantner Electronic GmbH v Basch Exploitatie Maatschappĳ B.V.

text:
C 134/10                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        5.5.2001
8 February 2001, which was received at the Court Registry on              2.    In the examination of the question whether ‘the same
7 March 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of                           cause of action’ has been brought, are exclusively the
1) Consorzio del Prosciutto Di Parma 2) Salumificio S. Rita                     pleadings of the plaintiff in the proceedings initiated by a
S.P.A. against 1) Asda Stores Limited 2) Hygrade Foods                          later action decisive and the defences and submissions of
Limited, on the following question:                                             the defendant therefore irrelevant, in particular also the
                                                                                defence of the procedural objection of set-off concerning
                                                                                a claim that is the subject-matter of a legal dispute
As a matter of Community law, does Council Regulation                           between the same parties on the basis of an action that
(EEC) No 2081/92 (1) read with Commission Regulation (EC)                       has already been brought earlier in another Contracting
No 1107/96 (2) and the specification for the PDO (3)‘prosciutto                 State?
di Parma’ create a valid Community right, directly enforceable
in the court of a member state, to restrain the retail sale as            3.    Where, on the basis of an action to enforce a contract
‘Parma ham’ of sliced and packaged ham derived from hams                        seeking damages for unlawful termination of a long-term
duly exported from Parma in compliance with the conditions                      obligation, the question as to whether such a long-term
of the PDO but which have not been thereafter sliced, packaged                  obligation existed at all is decided, is that decision also
and labelled in accordance with the specification?                              binding in subsequent proceedings between the same
                                                                                parties?
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the
    protection of geographical indications and designations of origin
    for agricultural products and foodstuffs (JO L 208, 24.07.1992,
    p. 1).
(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 of 12 June 1996 on
    the registration of geographical indications and designations of
    origin under the procedure laid down in Article 17 of Council
    Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 (JO L 148, 21.06.1996, p. 1).
(3) (protected designation of origin).                                    Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Vestre Landsret
                                                                          by order of 9 March 2001 in the case of ApS SPKR 4
                                                                          No 3482 v (1) Skatteministeriet, (2) Public limited com-
                                                                          pany of 11/9 1996, and (3) A.T.S. I/S Arden Transport &
                                                                          Spedition, represented by Søren Lauritsen and Lene
                                                                                Lauritsen
                                                                                (Case C-112/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 134/16)
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster
Gerichtshof, Austria, by order of that court of 22 February
2001 in the case of Gantner Electronic GmbH v Basch                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                  Exploitatie Maatschappij B.V.                           European Communities by order of 9 March 2001 by the
                                                                          Vestre Landsret (Western Regional Court), which was received
                                                                          at the Court Registry on 12 March 2001, for a preliminary
                          (Case C-111/01)                                 ruling in the case of ApS SPKR 4 No 3482 v (1) Skatteministe-
                                                                          riet (Ministry of Fiscal Affairs), (2) Public limited company of
                                                                          11/9 1996, and (3) AT.S. I/S Arden Transport & Spedition,
                          (2001/C 134/15)                                 represented by Søren Lauritsen and Lene Lauritsen, on the
                                                                          following questions:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Oberster Gerichts-
hof (Supreme Court), Austria, of 22 February 2001, which was              Question 1
received at the Court Registry on 12 March 2001, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Gantner Electronic GmbH v
Basch Exploitatie Maatschappij B.V. on the following questions:           Must the provisions in Council Regulation No 2913/92 (1) (the
                                                                          Customs Code) and in Commission Regulation No 2454/93 (2)
                                                                          (the implementing regulation), in particular Article 379(1) of
1.    Does the concept of ‘the same cause of action’ in                   the implementing regulation, be construed as meaning that a
      Article 21 of the Brussels Convention extend also to the            customs debt arising by reason of an offence or irregularity
      defence of the defendant that he has extinguished a part            in connection with external Community transit cannot be
      of the claim sued for by extra-judicial set-off, where the          recovered by the office of departure from the principal in so
      part of this counterclaim that is allegedly not extinguished        far as the principal did not, before the end of the eleventh
      is the subject-matter of a legal dispute between the same           month following the date of registration of the Community
      parties on the basis of an action that has already been             transit declaration, receive the notification referred to in
      brought earlier in another Contracting State?                       Article 379 of the implementing regulation?


               19.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 312/1

         2009/C 312/01
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 297, 5.12.2009

      Past publications

      OJ C 282, 21.11.2009

      OJ C 267, 7.11.2009

      OJ C 256, 24.10.2009

      OJ C 244, 10.10.2009

      OJ C 233, 26.9.2009

      OJ C 220, 12.9.2009

   These texts are available on:
   EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of  6 October 2005  in Case C-276/03 P: Scott SA v Commission of the European Communities and French Republic (Appeal — Unlawful State aid — Temporal application of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 — Decision on incompatibility and recovery of aid — Limitation period — Interruption — Need to inform the beneficiary of the aid of an interrupting action)

text:
               26.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/3

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 6 October 2005
   in Case C-276/03 P: Scott SA v Commission of the European Communities and French Republic (1)

   (Appeal - Unlawful State aid - Temporal application of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Decision on incompatibility and recovery of aid - Limitation period - Interruption - Need to inform the beneficiary of the aid of an interrupting action)
   (2005/C 296/05)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case C-276/03 P: appeal under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, brought on 24 June 2003 by Scott SA, established in Saint-Cloud (France) (represented by J. Lever QC, G. Peretz, Barrister, A. Nourry, R. Griffith and M. Papadakis, Solicitors), the other parties to the proceedings being: Commission of the European Communities (Agent: J. Flett), and the French Republic — the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, N. Colneric, K. Schiemann, E. Juhász and E. Levits, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 6 October 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Scott SA and the Commission of the European Communities to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 200 of 23. 08.2003.


title: Case C-90/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht (Germany) lodged on 25 February 2011 — Alfred Strigl v Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt

text:
               11.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 173/3

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht (Germany) lodged on 25 February 2011 — Alfred Strigl v Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt
   (Case C-90/11)
   2011/C 173/05
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundespatentgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Alfred Strigl

      Defendant: Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt

      Question referred

   Is the ground for refusal under Article 3(1)(b) and/or (c) of Directive 2008/95/EC (1) also applicable to a word sign which consists of a descriptive word combination and a non descriptive letter sequence, if the trade perceives the letter sequence as an abbreviation of the descriptive words because it reproduces their initial letters, and the trade mark as a whole can thus be construed as a combination of mutually explanatory descriptive indications or abbreviations?

      (1)  Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (Codified version); OJ 2008 L 299, p. 25.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 December 2000 in Case C-347/99: Commission of the European Communities v Ireland (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to transpose Directive 95/50/EC)

text:
C 150/2                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           19.5.2001
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                (Second Chamber)
                       of 14 December 2000
                                                                                of 14 December 2000
in Case C-141/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Hof van Beroep te Gent): Algemene Maatschappij voor
Investering en Dienstverlening NV (AMID) v Belgische
                                Staat (1)                                  in Case C-347/99: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Ireland (1)
(Freedom of establishment — Tax legislation — Direct taxes
     — Deduction of business losses — Previous tax year)
                                                                           (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure
                                                                                to transpose Directive 95/50/EC)
                           (2001/C 150/02)
                                                                                (2001/C 150/03)
                     (Language of the case: Dutch)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                         (Language of the case: English)
                    in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-141/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of              In Case C-347/99: Commission of the European Communities
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Hof van te                     (Agent: M. Wolfcarius) v Ireland (Agent: M.A. Buckley) —
Beroep te Gent (Ghent Court of Appeal) (Belgium), for a                    application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws,
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                  regulations or administrative provisions necessary to comply
court between Algemene Maatschappij voor Investering en                    with Council Directive 95/50/EC of 6 October 1995 on
Dienstverlening NV (AMID) and Belgische Staat — on the                     uniform procedures for checks on the transport of dangerous
interpretation of Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after                  goods by road (OJ 1995 L 249, p. 35), or in any event by
amendment, Article 43 EC) — the Court (Sixth Chamber),                     failing to inform the Commission of those measures, Ireland
composed of: C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), President of the                     has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive — the
Chamber, V. Skouris and J.-P. Puissochet, Judges; S. Alber,                Court (Second Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris, President
Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the              of the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and N. Colneric,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 December 2000, in                    Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
which it has ruled:                                                        given a judgment on 14 December 2000, in which it:
Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC)          1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period,
precludes legislation of a Member State under which a company                    the laws, regulations and administrative provisions needed to
incorporated under national law, having its seat in that Member                  comply with Council Directive 95/50/EC of 6 October 1995
State, may, for the purposes of corporation tax, deduct a loss incurred          on uniform procedures for checks on the transport of dangerous
the previous year from the taxable profit for the current year only on           goods by road, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under
the condition that that loss was not capable of being set off against            that directive.
the profit made during that same previous year by one of its
permanent establishments situated in another Member State, when
the loss, although set off, cannot be deducted from taxable income in      2.    Orders Ireland to pay the costs.
either of the Member States concerned, whereas it would be deductible
if the establishments of that company were situated exclusively in the
Member State in which it has its seat.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999.
(1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 2 May 1996 in Case C-18/94 (reference to the Court for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division): Barbara Hopkins and Others v. National Power plc, Powergen plc, third party: British Coal Corporation (ECSC Treaty - Discrimination between producers - Application of Articles 4 and 63 of the Treaty - Direct effect - EC Treaty - Abuse of dominant position - Article 86 of the Treaty - Compensation for damage resulting from infringement of those provisions - Powers of the Commission and of the national court)

text:
No C 180/ 14              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                   22 . 6 . 96
      prior to that date, initiated proceedings or raised an                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      equivalent claim.                                                                             ( Sixth Chamber)
(M OJ No C 196 , 20 . 7 . 1993 .
                                                                                of 2 May 1996
                                                                            in Case C- 1 8/94 ( reference to the Court for a preliminary
                                                                            ruling from the High Court ofJustice of England and Wales,
                                                                            Queen's Bench Division ): Barbara Hopkins and Others v.
                                                                            National Power pic, Powergen pic, third party: British Coal
                                                                                Corporation ( 1 )
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                        (ECSC Treaty — Discrimination between producers —
                           of 30 April 1996                                 Application of Articles 4 and 63 of the Treaty — Direct
in Case C-58/94 : Kingdom of the Netherlands v. Council of                  effect — EC Treaty — Abuse of dominant position —
                       the European Union (')                               Article 86 of the Treaty — Compensation for damage
                                                                            resulting from infringement of those provisions — Powers
 (Action for annulment — Rules on public access to Council                         of the Commission and of the national court)
                               documents)
                                                                                ( 96/C 180/28 )
                             ( 96/C 180/27 )
                (Language of tbe case: Dutch)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-58/94 : Kingdom of the Netherlands ( Agents : A.                  In Case C- 1 8/94 , reference to the Court by the High Court
Bos and J. W. de Zwaan ), supported by the European                         of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division,
Parliament ( Agents : G. Garzón Clariana , C. Pennera and E.                for a preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the EC Treaty
Vandenbosch ) v. Council of the European Union ( Agents :                   and Article 41 of the ECSC Treaty in the proceedings
J. -P. Jacqué and G. Houttuin ), supported by the                           pending before that court between Barbara Hopkins and
Commission of the European Communities ( Agents : P.                        Others v. National Power pic, Powergen pic, third party:
Vaan Nuffel and S. Van Raepenbusch ) and the French                         British Coal Corporation — on the interpretation of
Republic ( Agents : C. de Salins and H. Renié ) — application               Articles 4 and 63 of the ECSC Treaty and Article 86 of the
for the annulment of Council Decision 93/73 1 /EC of                        EC Treaty — the Court ( Sixth Chamber ) composed of C. N.
20 December 1993 on public access to Council documents                      Kakouris , President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch, G. F.
( OJ No L 340, 1993 , p . 43 ), Article 22 of the Rules of                  Mancini ( Rapporteur ), F. A. Schockweiler and P. J. G.
Procedure of the Council as amended by Council Decision                     Kapteyn, Judges, Advocate-General : N. Fennelly, Registrar:
93/662/EC of 6 December 1993 ( OJ No L 304, 1993 , p . 1 )                  L. Hewlett, Administrator, gave a judgment on 2 May 1 996 ,
and the Code of Conduct ( 93/730/EC ) concerning public                     the operative part of which is as follows :
access to Council and Commission documents ( OJ No
L 340, 1 993 , p . 4 1 ) in so far as that act is to be regarded as an
act having legal effects — the Court, composed of G. C.
Rodriguez Iglesias, President, C. N. Kakouris, D. A. O.                     1 . The provisions of the ECSC Treaty, and in particular
Edward, J. -P. Puissochet and G. Hirsch ( Presidents of                         Articles 4 (b) and 63 (1 ) thereof, constitute the legal
Chambers ), G. F. Mancini , F. A. Schockweiler, J. C.                           framework for dealing with discrimination practised by
Moitinho de Almeida ( Rapporteur ), P. J. G. Kapteyn,                           purchasers against producers as regards price, volume
C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm, L. Sevón                       and other terms and conditions for the purchase of
and M. Wathelet, Judges; G. Tesauro, Advocate-General;                          coal.
H. A. Rühl , Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave
a judgment on 30 April 1996 , the operative part of which is
as follows :
                                                                           2 . Articles 4 (b) and 63 (1 ) of the ECSC Treaty do not
I. The application is dismissed.                                                create rights which individuals may rely on directly
                                                                                before national courts. However, wherever the
2 . The Kingdom of the Netherlands is ordered to pay the                        provisions ofa recommendation based on Article 63 (1 )
     costs .
                                                                                appear, as regards their subject-matter, to be
                                                                                unconditional and sufficiently precise, those provisions
                                                                                may be relied upon directly by individuals before the
3 . The French Republic, the European Parliament and the                        national court.
     Commission of the European Communities are ordered
     to bear their own costs .
() OJ No C 90, 26. 3 . 1994.                                               3 Commission decisions based on Articles 65 and 66 (7) of
                                                                                the ECSC Treaty, which are binding in their entirety
                                                                                pursuant to Article 14 of the ECSC Treaty, are binding
 ---pagebreak--- 22 . 6 . 96            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 180/ 15
     on the national courts. However, the national courts                   C-45/90 Paletta v. Brennet [1992] ECR 1-3423, does not
     may still ask the Court ofJustice to rule on their validity            imply that employers are barred from adducing evidence
     or interpretation.                                                     to support, where appropriate, a finding by the national
                                                                            court of abuse or fraudulent conduct on the part of the
(') OJ No C 76 , 12 . 3 . 1994 , OJ No C 174, 25 . 6 . 1994 .               worker concerned in that, although he may claim to
                                                                            have become incapacitated for work, such incapacity
                                                                            having been certified in accordance with Article 18 of
                                                                            that Regulation, he was not sick at all.
                                                                       (') OJ No C 275 , 1 . 10 . 1994 .
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          of 2 May 1996
in Case C-206/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Bundesarbeitsgericht ): Brennet AG v. Vittorio
                              Paletta ( 1 )
   (Social security — Recognition of incapacity for work)                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           ( 96/C 180/29 )                                                      ( Fifth Chamber )
                                                                                of 2 May 1996
                (Language of the case: German)
                                                                       in Case C-234/95 : the Commission of the European
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                Communities v. French Republic ( a )
          published in the European Court Reports)                     (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                                                                                Directive 92/50/EEC)
In Case C-206/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177                                       ( 96/C 180/30 )
of the EC Treaty from the Bundesarbeitsgericht ( Federal
Labour Court ) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                             (Language of the case: French)
pending before that court between Brennet AG and Vittorio
Paletta — on the interpretation of Article 22 ( 1 ) of Council
Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
application of social security schemes to employed persons                       published in the European Court Reports)
and their families moving within the Community ( OJ,
English Special Edition 1971 ( II ), p . 416 ), as amended by          In Case C-234/95 : Commission of the European
Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2001 /83 of 2 June 1983 ( OJ             Communities ( Agent : Hendrik van Lier ) v . French Republic
No L 230, 1983 , p . 6 ), and on the interpretation and validity       ( Agents : Catherine de Salins and Philippe Martinet ) —
of Article 18 ( 1 ) to ( 5 ) of Council Regulation ( EEC )             application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt the
No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 fixing the procedure for                    laws, regulations and administrative provisions needed in
implementing Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 ( OJ, English               order to comply with Council Directive 92/50/EEC of
Special Edition 1972 ( I ), p . 159 ) — the Court, composed of         18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for
G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, C. N. Kakouris, J. -P.            the award of public service contracts ( OJ No L 209, 1992 ,
Puissochet and G. Hirsch ( Presidents of Chambers ), G. F.             p . 1 ) and, in the alternative , by failing to inform the
Mancini, F. A. Schockweiler, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida                 Commission of such measures forthwith, the French
( Rapporteur ), P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray, P. Jann and            Republic vhas failed to fulfil its obligations under that
H. Ragnemalm, L. Sevôn and M. Wathelet, Judges; G.                     Directive and, in particular, Article 44 thereof — the Court
Cosmas , Advocate-General; H. A. Riihl , Principal                     ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of D. A. O. Edward, President
Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 2 May             of the Chamber, J. -P. Puissochet, P. Jann ( Rapporteur ),
 1996, the operative part of which is as follows:                      L. Sevon and M. Wathelet, Judges; A. La Pergola ,
                                                                       Advocate-General ; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on
I. Article 22 (1 ) (a) (ii) of Council Regulation (EEC)                2 May 1996 , in which it:
     No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application ofsocial
     security schemes to employed persons and their families           1 . Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed
     moving within the Community, as amended by Council                     period, the laws, regulations and administrative
     Regulation (EEC) No 2001 /83 of 2 June 1983, is to be                  provisions needed in order to comply with Council
     interpreted as covering national legislation under which               Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the
     an employee is entitled, on becoming incapacitated for                 coordination of procedures for the award of public
     work, to continued payment of his wages for a certain                  service contracts, the French Republic has failed to fulfil
     period, even where those wages are not payable until a                 its obligations under Article 44 (1 ) of that Directive.
     given period has elapsed since the incapacity
     commenced.
                                                                       2 . Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
2 . The interpretation of Article 18 (1 ) to (5) of Council
                                                                       (') OJ No C 229 , 2 . 9 . 1995 .
     Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 fixing
     the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC)
     No 1408/71 , given by the Court in its judgment in Case


title: Case C-137/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Budapesti II. és III Kerületi Bíróság (Republic of Hungary) lodged on 7 April 2008 — VB Pénzügyi Lízing Zrt. v Ferenc Schneider

text:
               19.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/8

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Budapesti II. és III Kerületi Bíróság (Republic of Hungary) lodged on 7 April 2008 — VB Pénzügyi Lízing Zrt. v Ferenc Schneider
   (Case C-137/08)
   (2008/C 183/15)
   Language of the case: Hungarian
   Referring court
   Budapesti II. és III Kerületi Bíróság (Hungary)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: VB Pénzügyi Lízing Zrt.

      Defendant: Ferenc Schneider
   Questions referred

               1.

               Does the consumer protection guaranteed by Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 (1) on unfair terms in consumer contracts require that — irrespective of the type of proceedings and whether they are inter partes or not — in the context of the review of their own competences, the national courts are to assess, of their own motion, the unfair nature of a contractual term before them even if not specifically requested to do so?

               2.

               If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative, what criteria may the national courts take into account in the context of that review, in particular in the case that the contractual term does not grant jurisdiction to the judicial body corresponding to the registered office of the service provider, but to a different judicial body which is located close to that registered office?

               3.

               Pursuant to the first paragraph of Articl 23 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice annexed to the Treaty on European Union, the Treaty establishing the European Community and the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, is the possibility precluded for the national courts to inform the Ministry of Justice of their own Member State that a reference for a preliminary ruling has been made at the same time as making that reference?

      (1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.


title: Case T-269/06: Action brought on 21 September 2006 — Rautaruukki v OHIM (RAUTARUUKKI)

text:
               18.11.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/42

         Action brought on 21 September 2006 — Rautaruukki v OHIM (RAUTARUUKKI)
   (Case T-269/06)
   (2006/C 281/74)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Rautaruukki Oyj (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by: P. Hagman, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought
   The applicant requests that the Court of First Instance:

               —

               annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of July 21, 2006 and establishes that the applied Community Trademark application No 3 608 081 RAUTARUUKKI shall be considered distinctive and registrable, and remits the case to OHIM for registration purposes;

               —

               orders the defendant OHIM to pay the applicant's costs in these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘RAUTARUUKKI’ for goods in among others class 6 — application No 3 608 081

      Decision of the examiner: Refusal of the application for the goods applied for in class 6

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(3) of Council Regulation No 40/94 since the trade mark ‘RAUTARUUKKI’ has become distinctive in respect of the goods applied for in class 6 after an extensive long-term use of the mark.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 27 February 2003 in Case C-373/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vergabekontrollsenat des Landes Wien): Adolf Truley GmbH v Bestattung Wien GmbH (Directive 93/36/EEC — Public supply contracts — Concept of "contracting authority" — Public-law body — Funeral undertaking)

text:
26.4.2003                 EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                  C 101/3
4.    Where it appears that the institution of the place of stay has           before that court between Santex SpA and Unità Socio
      wrongly refused to provide the benefits in kind referred to in           Sanitaria Locale n. 42 di Pavia, interveners: Sca Mölnlycke
      Article 31 of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and                      SpA, Artsana SpA and Fater SpA, on the interpretation of
      updated by Regulation No 2001/83, as amended by Regu-                    Article 22 of Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993
      lation No 3096/95, and the institution of the place of                   coordinating procedures for the award of public supply
      residence, on being advised of that refusal, has declined to             contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 1) and Article 6(2) EU, the Court
      contribute, as it is obliged to, to facilitating the correct             (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of
      application of that provision, it is for the latter institution,         the Chamber, R. Schintgen and V. Skouris (Rapporteur),
      without prejudice to the possible liability of the institution of        F. Macken and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate
      the place of stay, to reimburse directly to the insured person the       General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
      cost of the treatment he has had to bear, so as to guarantee him         has given a judgment on 27 February 2003, in which it has
      a level of funding equivalent to that which he would have                ruled:
      enjoyed had the provisions of that article been complied with.
                                                                               Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the
5.    In the latter case, Articles 31 and 36 of Regulation No 1408/            coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
      71, as amended and updated by Regulation No 2001/83, as                  relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public
      amended by Regulation No 3096/95, and Articles 31 and 93                 supply and public works contracts, as amended by Council Directive
      of Regulation No 574/72, as amended and updated by                       92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of
      Regulation No 2001/83, as amended by Regulation                          procedures for the award of public service contracts, must be
      No 3096/95, preclude national legislation from subjecting                interpreted as imposing on the competent national courts, where it is
      such reimbursement to the obtaining of ex post facto authoris-           established that, by its conduct, a contracting authority has rendered
      ation which is granted only in so far as it is shown that the            impossible or excessively difficult the exercise of the rights conferred
      illness which necessitated the treatment in question manifested          by the Community legal order on a national of the Union who has
      itself suddenly during the stay, making that treatment immedi-           been harmed by a decision of that contracting authority, an obligation
      ately necessary.                                                         to allow as admissible pleas in law alleging that the notice of
                                                                               invitation to tender is incompatible with Community law, which are
                                                                               put forward in support of an application for review of that decision,
( 1) OJ C 335 of 25.11.2000.                                                   by availing itself, where appropriate, of the possibility afforded by
                                                                               national law of disapplying national rules on limitation periods,
                                                                               under which, when the period prescribed for bringing proceedings for
                                                                               review of the notice of invitation to tender has expired, it is no longer
                                                                               possible to plead such incompatibility.
                                                                               (1 ) OJ C 36 of 4.11.2000.
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         of 27 February 2003
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
in Case C-327/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia):                                              of 27 February 2003
Santex SpA v Unità Socio Sanitaria Locale n. 42 di Pavia (1)
                                                                               in Case C-373/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                               the Vergabekontrollsenat des Landes Wien): Adolf Truley
(Directive 93/36/EEC — Public supply contracts — Directive                                   GmbH v Bestattung Wien GmbH ( 1)
89/665/EEC — Review procedures applicable to public
 contracts — Limitation period — Principle of effectiveness)                   (Directive 93/36/EEC — Public supply contracts — Concept
                                                                               of ‘contracting authority’ — Public-law body — Funeral
                            (2003/C 101/05)                                                                 undertaking)
                                                                                (2003/C 101/06)
                      (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     in the European Court Reports)                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-327/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234                     In Case C-373/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia                  EC by the Vergabekontrollsenat des Landes Wien (Austria) for
(Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending                    a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
 ---pagebreak--- C 101/4                   EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                              26.4.2003
court between Adolf Truley GmbH and Bestattung Wien                                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
GmbH, on the interpretation of Article 1(b) of Council
Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating procedures
for the award of public supply contracts (OJ 1993 L 199,                                                  (Fifth Chamber)
p. 1), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet,
President of the Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur),
P. Jann, S. von Bahr and A. Rosas, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate                                          of 27 February 2003
General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
has given a judgment on 27 February 2003, in which it has
                                                                             in Case C-389/00: Commission of the European Communi-
ruled:
                                                                                ties v Federal Republic of Germany (1)
                                                                             (Failure to fulfil obligations — Articles 23 and 25 EC —
                                                                             Charge having an equivalent effect- Export of waste — Basle
1.    The term ‘needs in the general interest’ in the second subpara-        Convention — Regulation No 259/93 — Contribution to a
      graph of Article 1(b) of Council Directive 93/36/EEC of                                              solidarity fund)
      14 June 1993 coordinating procedures for the award of public
      supply contracts is an autonomous concept of Community law.
                                                                                (2003/C 101/07)
2.    The activities of funeral undertakers may meet a need in the                                (Language of the case: German)
      general interest. The fact that a regional or local authority is
      legally obliged to arrange funerals — and, where necessary, to
      bear the costs of those funerals — where they have not been            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
      arranged within a certain period after a death certificate has                              in the European Court Reports)
      been issued constitutes evidence that there is such a need in the
      general interest.
                                                                             In Case C-389/00, Commission of the European Communities
                                                                             (Agent: J.C. Schieferer) v Federal Republic of Germany (Agent:
3.    The existence of significant competition does not, of itself, allow    B. Muttelsee-Schön, assisted by H.-J. Koch): Application for a
      the conclusion to be drawn that there is no need in the general        declaration that, by enacting the Gesetz über die Überwachung
      interest, not having an industrial or commercial character. The        und Kontrolle der grenzüberschreitenden Verbringung von
      national court must assess whether or not there is such a              Abfällen (Abfallverbringungsgesetz) (Act on the supervision
      need, taking account of all the relevant legal and factual             and control of transboundary shipments of waste; ‘the waste
      circumstances, such as those prevailing at the time of establish-      shipment act’) of 30 September 1994, BGBl. 1994 I, p. 2771),
      ment of the body concerned and the conditions under which it           establishing a solidarity fund for the return of waste and
      exercises its activity.                                                requiring exporters of waste, including those exporting to
                                                                             other Member States, to contribute to that fund, the Federal
                                                                             Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                             Articles 23 EC and 25 EC, the Court (Fifth Chamber),
4.    A mere review does not satisfy the criterion of management             composed of: D.A.O. Edward, acting for the President of the
      supervision in the third indent of the second subparagraph of          Chamber, A. La Pergola, P. Jann, S. von Bahr and A. Rosas
      Article 1(b) of Directive 93/36. That criterion is, however,           (Rapporteur), Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,
      satisfied where the public authorities supervise not only the          Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
      annual accounts of the body concerned but also its conduct from        on 27 February 2003, in which it:
      the point of view of proper accounting, regularity, economy,
      efficiency and expediency and where those public authorities are
      authorised to inspect the business premises and facilities of that     1.    Declares that, by subjecting shipments of waste to other
      body and to report the results of those inspections to a regional            Member States to a mandatory contribution to the solidarity
      authority which holds, through another company, all the shares               fund for the return of waste established by the Gesetz über
      in the body in question.                                                     die Überwachung und Kontrolle der grenzüberschreitenden
                                                                                Verbringung von Abfällen (Abfallverbringungsgesetz) of
                                                                                30 September 1994, the Federal Republic of Germany has
                                                                                failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 23 EC and 25 EC;
( 1) OJ C 372 of 23.12.2000.                                                 2.    Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
                                                                             (1 ) OJ C 4 of 6.1.2001.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) of 19 November 1998 in Case C-316/97 P: European Parliament v. Giuliana Gaspari (Appeal - Officials - Sick leave - Medical certificate - Medical officer's examination - Findings at variance with the medical certificate - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence)

text:
23.1.1999            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 20/5
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (First Chamber)
                       (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 19 November 1998
                    of 19 November 1998
                                                                     in Case C-316/97 P: European Parliament v. Giuliana
in Case C-235/97: French Republic v. Commission of the                                          Gaspari (1)
                  European Communities (1)                           (Appeal Ð Officials Ð Sick leave Ð Medical certificate Ð
                                                                     Medical officer's examination Ð Findings at variance with
(EAGGF Ð Clearance of accounts Ð 1993 financial year                 the medical certificate Ð Obligation to state reasons Ð
Ð Cereals Ð Export refunds in respect of processed                                        Rights of the defence)
                            cheese)
                                                                                (1999/C 20/07)
                        (1999/C 20/06)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
               (Language of the case: French)                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                               published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                     In Case C-316/97 P: European Parliament (Agents:
                                                                     Manfred Peter and Antonio Caiola) Ð appeal against the
                                                                     judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       Communities in Case T-36/96 Gaspari v. Parliament
         published in the European Court Reports)                    [1997] ECR-SC II-595, seeking to have that judgment set
                                                                     aside, the other party to the proceedings being: Giuliana
                                                                     Gaspari, an official of the European Parliament,
                                                                     represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis, Thierry Demaseure,
                                                                     Ariane Tornel and FrancËoise Parmentier, of the Brussels
In Case C-235/97: French Republic (Agent: Kareen                     Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Rispal-Bellanger and FreÂdeÂric Pascal) v. Commission of             Offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange
the European Communities (Agent: Xavier Lewis) Ð                     Ð the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann,
Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision             President of the Chamber, L. Sevón and M. Wathelet
97/333/EC of 23 April 1997 on the clearance of the                   (Rapporteur),       Judges;    D.    Ruiz-Jarabo      Colomer,
accounts presented by the Member States in respect of the            Advocate-General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for
expenditure for 1993 of the Guarantee Section of the                 the Registrar, has given a judgment on 19 November
European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund                    1998, in which it:
(EAGGF) (OJ L 139, 30.5.1997, p. 30) Ð the Court (Fifth
Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the
Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann,                      1. Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance
D. A. O. Edward and M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), Judges;                     of 10 July 1997 in Case T-36/96 Gaspari v. Parliament
S. Alber, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given                to the extent to which it annulled, on the ground of
a judgment on 19 November 1998, in which it:                              breach of the obligation to state reasons and breach of
                                                                          the rights of the defence, the decision of 22 May 1995
                                                                          by which the Parliament treated Mrs Gaspari's
                                                                          absence on 5 May 1995 as irregular and deducted one
                                                                          day from her annual leave and the decision of 9 August
                                                                          1995 by which the Parliament confirmed that
1. Dismisses the application;
                                                                          decision;
                                                                     2. Refers the case back to the Court of First Instance for
                                                                          it to give judgment on the other pleas in law relied on
2. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.                           by Mrs Gaspari at first instance;
(1) OJ C 252, 16.8.1997.                                             3. Reserves the costs.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 331, 1.11.1997.


title: Case C-421/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 July 2014  — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Consumer protection — Unfair commercial practices — Directive 2005/29/EC — Complete harmonisation — Exclusion of the professions, dentists and physiotherapists — Rules governing the announcement of price reductions — Restriction or prohibition of certain types of itinerant trading activities)

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/5

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 July 2014 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-421/12) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Consumer protection - Unfair commercial practices - Directive 2005/29/EC - Complete harmonisation - Exclusion of the professions, dentists and physiotherapists - Rules governing the announcement of price reductions - Restriction or prohibition of certain types of itinerant trading activities))
   2014/C 315/06
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. van Beek and by M. Owsiany-Hornung, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: T. Materne and J.-C. Halleux, acting as Agents, assisted by É. Balate, avocat)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that:

                           —

                           by excluding members of a profession and dentists and physiotherapists from the scope of the Law of 14 July 1991 on commercial practices, consumer information and consumer protection, as amended by the Law of 5 June 2007, transposing in national law Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’),

                           —

                           by maintaining in force Articles 20, 21 and 29 of the Law of 6 April 2010 on market practices and consumer protection, and

                           —

                           by maintaining in force Article 4(3) of the Law of 25 June 1993 on the exercise and organisation of travelling trading and fairground activities, as amended by the Law of 4 July 2005 and Article 5(1) of the Royal Decree of 24 September 2006 concerning the exercise and organisation of travelling trading activities,

                     the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2(b) and (d), 3 and 4 of Directive 2005/29.

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 355, 17.11.2012.


title: Case C-107/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria regionale della Lombardia (Italy) lodged on 4 February 2014  — 3D I srl v Agenzia delle Entrate Ufficio di Cremona

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/34

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria regionale della Lombardia (Italy) lodged on 4 February 2014 — 3D I srl v Agenzia delle Entrate Ufficio di Cremona
   (Case C-107/14)
   2014/C 315/55
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Commissione tributaria regionale della Lombardia

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: 3D I srl

      Defendant: Agenzia delle Entrate Ufficio di Cremona
   By order of 17 July 2014, the Court of Justice (Third Chamber) declared the request for a preliminary ruling inadmissible.


C 304/20                 EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                     13.12.2003
Action brought on 31 October 2003 by the Commission                           from the register of Case C-28/02: Commission of the
        of the European Communities against Ireland                           European Communities v Kingdom of Spain.
                          (Case C-460/03)
                                                                              (1) OJ C 68 of 16.3.2002.
                          (2003/C 304/29)
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 31 October 2003 by
the Commission of the European Communities, represented                              Removal from the register of Case C-162/02 (1)
by X. Lewis and M. Konstantinidis, acting as agents, with an
address for service in Luxembourg.                                                                     (2003/C 304/32)
The Applicant claims that the Court should:
1)    declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations                  By order of 14 August 2003 the President of the Court of
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
      Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of                  from the register of Case C-162/02: Commission of the
      the Council of 18 September 2000 on end-of life                         European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
      vehicles (1), Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      the directive and in particular its Article 10(1) and under             (1) OJ C 156 of 29.6.2002.
      the Treaty establishing the European Community;
2)    order Ireland to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-231/02 (1)
The period within which the directive had to be transposed
expired on 21 April 2002.                                                                              (2003/C 304/33)
(1) OJ L 269, 21.10.2000, p. 34.
                                                                              By order of 18 September 2003 the President of the Court of
                                                                              Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                              from the register of Case C-231/02 (Reference for a preliminary
                                                                              ruling by the Bundesvergabeamt): Neumayer Bau Ges.m.b.H v
                                                                              Abwasserverband Grossraum Bruck an der Leitha.
       Removal from the register of Case C-379/01 (1)
                          (2003/C 304/30)                                     (1) OJ C 219 of 14.9.2002.
By order of 16 September 2003 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-379/01 (Reference for a preliminary
ruling by the Bundesvergabeamt): Ortner GmbH v Allgemeine                            Removal from the register of Case C-380/02 (1)
Unfallversicherungsanstalt.
                                                                                (2003/C 304/34)
(1) OJ C 3 of 5.1.2002.
                                                                              By order of 18 September 2003 the President of the Court of
                                                                              Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                              from the register of Case C-380/02 (Reference for a preliminary
        Removal from the register of Case C-28/02 (1)                         ruling by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes
                                                                              Vorarlberg): Fantom Gebäudereinigung Gesellschaft GmbH v
                          (2003/C 304/31)                                     Dornbirn.
                                                                              (1) OJ C 7 of 11.1.2003.
By order of 1st August 2003 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal


title: Case T-73/15: Action brought on 17 February 2015 — Aston Martin Lagonda v OHIM (Representation of a grille positioned on the front of a motor vehicle)

text:
               13.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/39

         Action brought on 17 February 2015 — Aston Martin Lagonda v OHIM (Representation of a grille positioned on the front of a motor vehicle)
   (Case T-73/15)
   (2015/C 118/49)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Aston Martin Lagonda Ltd (Gaydon, United Kingdom) (represented by: D. Farnsworth, Solicitor)

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

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Trade mark at issue: Community mark indicated as ‘other’ (Representation of a grille positioned on the front of a motor vehicle) — Application for registration No 1 2 2 18  426

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 December 2014 in Case R 1796/2014-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision insofar as it upheld the conclusion of the examiner that the mark applied for prima facie lacked distinctive character for the goods and services in question;

               —

               allow the community trade mark application No 1 2 2 18  426 to proceed to publication;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

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


C 302/22              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                21.10.2000
       Removal from the register of Case C-163/98 (1)                       Removal from the register of Case C-341/99 (1)
                         (2000/C 302/44)                                                      (2000/C 302/48)
By order of 19 May 2000, the President of the Court of Justice       By order of 13 June 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from             of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-163/98: Commission of the European            the register of Case C-341/99 (reference for a preliminary
Communities v Eyckeler & Malt AG.                                    ruling from Landesgerich Korneuburg): SEIKO Kabushiki Kai-
                                                                     sha v Rashad Wali.
(1) OJ C 258 of 15.8.1998.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 352 of 4.12.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-460/99 (1)
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-450/99 (1)
                         (2000/C 302/45)
                                                                                (2000/C 302/49)
By order of 25 May 2000, the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from             By order of 13 June 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
the register of Case C-460/99: Commission of the European            of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
Communities v French Republic.                                       the register of Case C-450/99 (reference for a preliminary
                                                                     ruling from Landesgericht Korneuburg): SEIKO Kabushiki
                                                                     Kaisha v Bajrami Sinavere.
(1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 34 of 5.2.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-78/99 (1)
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-432/00 (1)
                         (2000/C 302/46)
                                                                                (2000/C 302/50)
By order of 9 June 2000, the President of the Third Chamber
of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has              By order of 22 June 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
ordered the removal from the register of Case C-78/99:               of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
Commission of the European Communities v French Republic.            the register of Case C-432/99: Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities v Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 160 of 5.6.1999.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 20 of 22.1.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-183/99 (1)
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-452/99 (1)
                         (2000/C 302/47)
                                                                                (2000/C 302/51)
By order of 13 June 2000, the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from             By order of 26 June 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
the register of Case C-183/99 (Reference for a preliminary           of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof): Hugo Boss v Trigavina         the register of Case C-452/99: Commission of the European
in Storitve D.O.O.                                                   Communities v French Republic.
(1) OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999.                                           (1) OJ C 34 of 5.2.2000.


title: Case C-197/08: Action brought on 14 May 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic

text:
               19.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/14

         Action brought on 14 May 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic
   (Case C-197/08)
   (2008/C 183/27)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: W. Mölls, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: French Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by adopting and maintaining in force a system of minimum prices for cigarettes sold in France, despite a prohibition on the sale of tobacco products ‘at a promotional price contrary to the aims of public health’, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 9(1) of Directive 95/59/EC (1);

               —

               order the French Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant submits that Article 9(1) of Directive 95/59/EC, as interpreted by the Court, clearly prohibits the intervention of the Member States in imposing, in a discretionary manner, minimum prices for the retail sale of manufactured tobacco products. Since they prevent manufacturers and importers from other countries from freely determining the maximum retail selling price of each of their products, such minimum prices restrict price competition and harm the internal market.
   Furthermore, with regard to the need alleged by the defendant to derogate from the above provision in order to protect public health, the Commission does not dispute that, in certain circumstances, it may be necessary to derogate from the provisions of the EC Treaty concerning free movement of goods in order to achieve that objective. However, in the present case, as the Court has already held, the objective of protecting public health can adequately be pursued by way of increased taxation on manufactured tobacco products, which preserves the principle of free determination of prices.

      (1)  Council Directive 95/59/EC of 27 November 1995 on taxes other than turnover taxes which affect the consumption of manufactured tobacco (OJ L 291, p. 40).


title: Case C-470/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 2 September 2013 — Generali-Providencia Biztosító Zrt. v Közbeszerzési Hatóság — Közbeszerzési Döntőbizottság

text:
               14.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 367/21

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 2 September 2013 — Generali-Providencia Biztosító Zrt. v Közbeszerzési Hatóság — Közbeszerzési Döntőbizottság
   (Case C-470/13)
   2013/C 367/36
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Generali-Providencia Biztosító Zrt.

      Defendant: Közbeszerzési Hatóság — Közbeszerzési Döntőbizottság

      Questions referred

               1.

               May the Member States exclude an economic operator from participating in a procedure for the award of a public contract on grounds other than those listed in Article 45 of Directive 2004/18/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (in particular, on grounds that are considered to be justified from the point of view of protecting the public interest, the legitimate interests of the contracting authority or fair competition and the maintenance of lawfulness in competition) and, if so, is the provision of such exclusion in relation to an economic operator that has committed an infringement related to his economic or professional activity and established by court judgment which has the authority of res judicata given not more than five years ago compatible with the second recital in the preamble to that directive and with Articles 18 TFEU, 34 TFEU, 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU?

               2.

               If the Court of Justice should answer the first question in the negative, must the first subparagraph of Article 45(2) of Directive 2004/18, in particular points (c) and (d) of that provision, be interpreted as meaning that it is possible to exclude from the procedure for the award of a public contract any economic operator who has committed an infringement established by an administrative or judicial authority in competition proceedings initiated on account of his economic or professional activity, legal consequences in matters of competition having been applied to the economic operator, as a result of that infringement?

      (1)  Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114).


title: Judgment of the Court of 14 March 2000 in Case C-54/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État, France): Association Église de Scientologie de Paris and Scientology International Reserves Trust v The Prime Minister (Free movement of capital — Direct foreign investments — Prior authorisation — Public policy and public security)

text:
27.5.2000                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 149/3
Article 3(1) of Decision No 3/80 of the Association Council of             Article 73d(1)(b) of the EC Treaty (now Article 58(1)(b) EC) must
19 September 1998 on the application of the social security schemes        be interpreted as precluding a system of prior authorisation for direct
of the Member States of the European Communities to Turkish                foreign investments which confines itself to defining in general terms
workers and members of their families must be interpreted as not           the affected investments as being investments that are such as to
precluding a Member State from applying to Turkish workers                 represent a threat to public policy and public security, with the result
legislation which, for the purposes of awarding a retirement pension       that the persons concerned are unable to ascertain the specific
and determining the social security number allocated for that purpose,     circumstances in which prior authorisation is required.
takes as the conclusive date of birth the one given in the first
declaration made by the person concerned to a social security authority
in that Member State and allows another date of birth to be taken
                                                                           (1) OJ C 100 of 10.4.1999.
into account only if a document is produced the original of which was
issued before that declaration was made.
(1) OJ C 209 of 4.7.1998 and OJ C 258 of 15.8.1998.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                               (Fifth Chamber)
                          of 14 March 2000
                                                                                of 16 March 2000
in Case C-54/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Conseil d’État, France): Association Église de Scientol-             in Joined Cases C-395/96 P and C-396/96 P: Compagnie
ogie de Paris and Scientology International Reserves                       Maritime Belge Transports SA (C-395/96 P), Compagnie
                 Trust v The Prime Minister (1)                            Maritime Belge SA (C-395/96 P) and Dafra-Lines A/S
                                                                           (C-396/96 P) v Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties (1)
(Free movement of capital — Direct foreign investments —
   Prior authorisation — Public policy and public security)
                                                                           (Competition — International maritime transport — Liner
                                                                           conferences — Regulation (EEC) No 4056/86 — Article 86
                           (2000/C 149/04)
                                                                           of the EC Treaty (now Article 82 EC) — Collective dominant
                                                                           position — Exclusivity agreement between national auth-
                                                                           orities and liner conferences — Liner conference insisting on
                     (Language of the case: French)                        application of the agreement — Fighting ships — Loyalty
                                                                           rebates — Rights of defence — Fines — Assessment criteria)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                               (2000/C 149/05)
                    in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-54/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Conseil d’État,                                   (Language of the case: English)
France, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between Association Église de Scientologie
de Paris, Scientology International Reserves Trust and The
Prime Minister — on the interpretation of Article 73d(1)(b) of
the EC Treaty (now Article 58(1)(b) EC) — the Court,
composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, J.C. Moitinho            In Joined Cases C-395/96 P and C-396/96 P: Compagnie
de Almeida, D.A.O. Edward, R. Schintgen (Presidents of                     Maritime Belge Transports SA (C-395/96 P), established in
Chambers), P.J.G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), J.-P.                  Antwerp, Belgium, Compagnie Maritime Belge SA (C-395/96
Puissochet, G. Hirsch, H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet and V.                    P), established in Antwerp, and Dafra-Lines A/S (C-396/96 P),
Skouris, Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate General; R. Grass, Regis-             established in Copenhagen, Denmark, represented by M. and
trar, has given a judgment on 14 March 2000, in which it has               D. Waelbroeck, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service
ruled:                                                                     in Luxembourg at the Chambers of E. Arendt, 34 Rue


title: Case C-490/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hajdú-Bihar Megyei Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 26 September 2011 — IBIS S.r.l. v PARTIUM ’70 Műanyagipari Zrt.

text:
               17.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 370/16

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hajdú-Bihar Megyei Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 26 September 2011 — IBIS S.r.l. v PARTIUM ’70 Műanyagipari Zrt.
   (Case C-490/11)
   2011/C 370/27
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Hajdú-Bihar Megyei Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: IBIS S.r.l.

      Defendant: PARTIUM ’70 Műanyagipari Zrt.

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are the provisions of Article 45(1) and (2) of Council Regulation 44/2001/EC (1) of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters to be interpreted as meaning that a court in the Member State in which recognition is sought may, in the appeal procedure under Article 45, refuse an application for a declaration of enforceability of a foreign judgment if the certificate referred to in Article 54 of that Regulation was issued without the conditions contained in Article 66(2)(a) or (b) thereof having been met?

               2.

               If so, how is Article 35(3) of that Regulation to be interpreted in relation to the application of Article 66 thereof?

               3.

               Does Article 1(2)(d) of the Regulation [permit] the possibility of refusal of an application for a declaration of enforceability on the basis of the certificate issued by the court of origin, if it is apparent from the judgment in respect of which the certificate was issued that there is an arbitration clause?

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