title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du Travail de Liège by judgment of that court of 28 March 1997 in the case of Office National des Pensions (ONP) v. Francesco Conti (Case C-143/97)

text:
No C 181 /6             EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                    14 . 6 . 97
     Council Directive 92/43/EEC ( J ) of 21 May 1992 on                    Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesge
     the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna                 richt Frankfurt am Main by order of that court of
     and flora, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its               25 March 1997 in the case of Deutsche Post AG v. GZS
     obligations under that Directive,                                                 Gesellschaft fur Zahlungssysteme mbH
                                                                                ( Case C-147/97)
— order the Italian Republic to pay the costs .
                                                                                ( 97/C 181 /12 )
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Under Article 189 of the EC Treaty, according to which a                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved,                European Communities by the Oberlandesgericht ( Higher
upon each Member State to which it is addressed,                            Regional Court) Frankfurt am Main by order of that court
Member States are required to observe the time-limits laid                  of 25 March 1997 in the case of Deutsche Post AG v.
down in directives for their transposition. That time-limit                 GZS Gesellschaft fur Zahlungssysteme mbH on the
expired on 5 June 1992 without the Italian Republic                         following questions :
having brought into force the necessary provisions in
order to comply with the Directive referred to in the
Commission's application .
(') OJ No L 206 , 22 . 7. 1992 , p . 71 .                                   1 . Must Article 90 of the EC Treaty be interpreted as
                                                                                meaning that, in so far as a law ratifying the
                                                                                Conventions     of    the   Universal  Postal  Union      of
                                                                                14 December 1989 creates the right for the postal
                                                                                service of Member State A to demand internal rates
                                                                                for the delivery of letters sent in Member State B or to
                                                                                refuse delivery if internal rates are not paid, where the
                                                                                content of the letters is determined by an undertaking
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du Tra                        in Member State A and transmitted by electronic data
vail de Liege by judgment of that court of 28 March 1997                        transfer to an undertaking having its seat in Member
in the case of Office National des Pensions ( ONP) v.                           State B in order to be printed out, prepared for
                          Francesco Conti
                                                                                dispatch and handed over to the postal service there,
                          ( Case C-143 /97 )                                    that law constitutes a State measure by which,
                                                                                contrary to Article 90 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty, a measure
                            ( 97/C 181 / 11 )
                                                                                was adopted conflicting with Article 86 of the EC
                                                                                Treaty which does not fall within the exceptions
                                                                                contemplated by Article 90 ( 2 )?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a judgment of the Cour du Tra
vail de Liege ( Higher Labour Court, Liege ) of 28 March
1997, which was received at the Court Registry on
16 April 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Of                  2 . Are Articles 30 et seq. and 59 et seq. of the EC Treaty
fice National des Pensions v. Francesco Conti on the                            to be interpreted as meaning that the power of the
following question:                                                             postal service in Member State A to demand internal
                                                                                rates for the delivery of letters sent in Member State B
                                                                                to addressees resident in Member State A or to refuse
Is the concept of a provision for reduction of benefit in                       to deliver such letters if internal rates are not paid is
Articles 12 ( 2 ), 46 ( 3 ) and 46 ( b ) of Regulation ( EEC )                  contrary to the guarantee of the free movement of
No 1408/71 (') to be interpreted as referring to a                              goods where the content of the letters is determined by
legislative provision of a Member State which, in                               an undertaking in Member State A and transmitted by
providing that the amount of the retirement pension of an                       electronic data transfer to an undertaking having its
employed person who has not completed a total of                                seat in Member State B in order to be printed out,
30 years of employment but has completed at least                               prepared for dispatch and handed over to the postal
25 years is to be increased by a supplement, states that                        service there ?
that supplement is to be equal to the difference between
the amount of the retirement pension which the worker
would have received if he had in fact been employed for
30 years and the total amount of the retirement pensions
which he can claim under a national scheme or a scheme                      3 . In the event that the answer to the above questions
of another Member State ?                                                       submitted for a preliminary ruling discloses an
                                                                                infringement of Community law only because the
(') OJ , English Special Edition 1971 ( II ), p. 416 .
                                                                                postal service of Member State A receives or can
                                                                                enforce, by refusing to deliver mail, payment of
                                                                                internal rates in addition to the postal charges paid in
                                                                                Member State B or in addition to the terminal dues


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 July 2005 in Case C-41/03 P: Rica Foods (Free Zone) NV v Commission of the European Communities, Kingdom of the Netherlands, Kingdom of Spain, French Republic (Appeal — Arrangements for association of the overseas countries and territories — Imports of sugar and mixtures of sugar and cocoa — Regulation (EC) No 465/2000 — Safeguard measures — Article 109 of the OCT Decision — Commission's power of assessment — Principle of proportionality — Reasons)

text:
               17.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 229/1

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 14 July 2005
   in Case C-41/03 P: Rica Foods (Free Zone) NV v Commission of the European Communities, Kingdom of the Netherlands, Kingdom of Spain, French Republic (1)

   (Appeal - Arrangements for association of the overseas countries and territories - Imports of sugar and mixtures of sugar and cocoa - Regulation (EC) No 465/2000 - Safeguard measures - Article 109 of the OCT Decision - Commission's power of assessment - Principle of proportionality - Reasons)
   (2005/C 229/02)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   In Case C-41/03 P: Rica Foods (Free Zone) NV, established in Oranjestad (Aruba) (Lawyer: G. van der Wal), the other parties to the proceedings being: Commission of the European Communities (Agent: T. van Rijn), Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agent H. Sevenster), Kingdom of Spain (Agents: N. Díaz Abad and D. Miguel Muñoz Pérez), French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues and L. Bernheim) — appeal under Article 49 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, brought on 29 January 2003 — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), G. Arestis and J. Klučka, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; M. Ferreira, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 July 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Rica Foods (Free Zone) NV to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Kingdom of Spain and the French Republic to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 83 of 05.04.2003.


title: Case T-102/14: Action brought on 17 February 2014 — Deutsche Post AG v OHIM

text:
               14.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/53

         Action brought on 17 February 2014 — Deutsche Post AG v OHIM
   (Case T-102/14)
   2014/C 112/68
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Deutsche Post AG (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: K. Hamacher and C. Giersdorf, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: PostNL Holding BV (Den Haag, Netherlands)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 December 2013 in Case R 2108/2012 1;

               —

               order the defendant and, as the case may be, the other party to the proceedings, to bear the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Deutsche Post AG

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘TPG POST’ for goods and services in Classes 6, 9, 16, 20, 35, 38 and 39 (Community trade mark registration No 2 920 916)

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: National and Community word marks ‘DP’, ‘POST’ and ‘Deutsche Post’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 12, 14, 16, 25, 28, 35, 36, 38, 39 and 42

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition rejected

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

      Plea in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009


C 299/40               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  26.9.98
coal mining industry for the years 1994, 1995 and 1996;                       Removal from the register of Case T-49/98 (1)
the second and third Decisions concern the years 1997                                           (98/C 299/72)
and 1998. All of the contested Decisions contain operating
aids under Article 3 of the Code (1), closure aids under                               (Language of the case: Dutch)
Article 4 of the Code as well as aids to cover exceptional
charges under Article 5 of the Code.                                   By order of 15 July 1998 the President of the Second
                                                                       Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                       Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
The applicant claims to be gravely concerned by these                  Case T-49/98 ALZ NV v. Commission of the European
Decisions, as the British coal industry has over the last 10           Communities.
years undergone massive restructuring and rationalisation
and as the company was also trying to find a market for                (1) OJ C 137, 2.5.1998.
its coal overseas, in particular in Germany and Spain.
The pleas in law and main arguments are, with the
exception of an alleged infringement of the principle of
good administration, identical to those raised in Case                 Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-56/98 and
T-110/98 (2).                                                                                T-56/98 R (1)
                                                                                (98/C 299/73)
(1) Commission Decision No 3632/93/ECSC of 28 December
    1993, establishing Community rules for State aid to the coal                      (Language of the case: English)
    industry (OJ L 329, 30.12.1993, p. 12).
(2) See page 38 of this Official Journal.                              By order of 17 June 1998 the President of the First
                                                                       Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                       Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
                                                                       Cases T-56/98 and T-56/98 R VTech Electronics (UK) plc
                                                                       v. Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                       (1) OJ C 166, 30.5.1998.
    Partial removal from the register of Case T-185/96 (1)
                          (98/C 299/71)
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case T-60/98 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 299/74)
By order of 10 July 1998 the President of the Third
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                                (Language of the case: French)
Communities has ordered the removal of the name of the
applicant Max Labat Automobiles 17 from the list of                    By order of 2 July 1998 the President of the Second
names of the applicants in Case T-185/96 Max Labat                     Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Automobiles 17 and Riviera Auto Service Ets Dalmasso v.                Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Commission of the European Communities.                                Case T-60/98 Ecord Consortium for Russian Cooperation,
                                                                       composed of the following members: Danagro Adviser A/
                                                                       S, Plunkett Foundation and Irish Agri-Food Development
(1) OJ C 54, 22.2.1997.                                                Ltd v. Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                       (1) OJ C 209, 4.7.1998.


title: Case T-38/02: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  25 October 2005  — Groupe Danone v Commission (Competition — Agreements and concreted practices — Fines — Guidelines for the calculation of the amount of fines — Communication on cooperation)

text:
               24.12.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 330/16

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 October 2005 — Groupe Danone v Commission
   (Case T-38/02) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements and concreted practices - Fines - Guidelines for the calculation of the amount of fines - Communication on cooperation)
   (2005/C 330/40)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Groupe Danone (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Winckler and M. Waha, lawyers)

      Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Bouquet and W. Wils, Agents)
   Application for
   annulment of Commission Decision 2003/569/EC of 5 December 2001 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case IV/37.614/F3 PO/Interbrew and Alken-Maes) (OJ 2003 L 200, p. 1) and, as a subsidiary plea, a reduction in the fine imposed on the applicant under Article 2 of that decision.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Sets the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant at EUR 42,4125 million;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and three-quarters of those incurred by the Commission. The Commission shall bear a quarter of its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 97, 20.4.2002.


title: Case C-273/12: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 July 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects, Chef de l’agence de poursuites de la Direction nationale du renseignement et des enquêtes douanières v Harry Winston SARL (Community Customs Code — Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 — Article 206 — Incurrence of a customs debt — Theft of goods placed under customs warehousing arrangements — Notion of ‘irretrievable loss of goods as a result of force majeure’ — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 71 — Value added tax — Chargeable event — Chargeability of tax)

text:
               31.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/13

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 July 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects, Chef de l’agence de poursuites de la Direction nationale du renseignement et des enquêtes douanières v Harry Winston SARL
   (Case C-273/12) (1)

   (Community Customs Code - Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Article 206 - Incurrence of a customs debt - Theft of goods placed under customs warehousing arrangements - Notion of ‘irretrievable loss of goods as a result of force majeure’ - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 71 - Value added tax - Chargeable event - Chargeability of tax)
   2013/C 252/20
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de cassation

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects, Chef de l’agence de poursuites de la Direction nationale du renseignement et des enquêtes douanières

      Defendant: Harry Winston SARL

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Cour de Cassation (France) — Interpretation of Article 206 of Council Regulation No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) and Article 71 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Goods held under the customs warehousing procedure — Theft of goods — Concept of irretrievable loss of the goods — Case of force majeure — Incurrence of the customs debt on importation — Event giving rise to the VAT charge

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 203(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1791/2006 of 20 November 2006, must be interpreted as meaning that a theft of goods placed under customs warehousing arrangements constitutes an unlawful removal of those goods within the meaning of that provision, giving rise to a customs debt on importation. Article 206 of that regulation is capable of applying only to situations in which a customs debt is liable to be incurred pursuant to Articles 202 and 204(1)(a) of that regulation;

               2.

               The second subparagraph of Article 71(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the theft of goods placed under customs warehousing arrangements gives rise to the chargeable event and causes value added tax to become chargeable.

      (1)  OJ C 235, 4.8.2012.


title: Joined Cases T-4/11 and T-5/11: Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2013 — Export Development Bank of Iran v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Error of assessment)

text:
               19.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 304/11

         Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2013 — Export Development Bank of Iran v Council
   (Joined Cases T-4/11 and T-5/11) (1)

   (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Error of assessment)
   2013/C 304/21
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Export Development Bank of Iran (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: J.-M. Thouvenin, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and R. Liudvinaviciute-Cordeiro, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Konstantinidis and A. Bordes, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for (i) a declaration that Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39) is inapplicable to the applicant; (ii) annulment of Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 1), Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1), and Council Regulation (EU) No 1263/2012 of 21 December 2012 amending Regulation No 267/2012 (OJ 2012 L 356, p. 34), and of all future regulations which might supplement or replace those regulations pending final judgment in the action, in so far as those acts concern the applicant; (iii) annulment of Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010 amending Decision 2010/413 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 81), Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413 (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 71), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation No 961/2010 (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11), and Council Decision 2012/829/CFSP of 21 December 2012 amending Decision 2010/413 (OJ 2012 L 356, p. 71), and of all future measures which might supplement or replace those measures pending final judgment in the action, in so far as those measures concern the applicant; and (iv) annulment of the decisions contained in the letters of 28 October 2010 and 5 December 2011.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the following measures in so far as they concern Export Development Bank of Iran:

                           —

                           Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP, as amended by Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010, and subsequently by Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011;

                           —

                           Decision 2010/644;

                           —

                           Annex VIII to Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007, as amended by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation No 961/2010;

                           —

                           Decision 2011/783;

                           —

                           Implementing Regulation No 1245/2011;

                           —

                           Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 961/2010;

               2.

               Orders the effects of Annex II to Decision 2010/413, as amended by Decision 2010/644 and subsequently by Decision 2011/783, to be maintained as regards Export Development Bank of Iran until the annulment of Annex IX to Regulation No 267/2012 takes effect, in so far as it concerns Export Development Bank of Iran;

               3.

               Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the application for a declaration that Decision 2010/413 is not applicable to Export Development Bank of Iran;

               4.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               5.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of Export Development Bank of Iran;

               6.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 72, 5.3.2011.


title: Case C-456/05: Action brought on  23 December 2005  by Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               8.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/10

         Action brought on 23 December 2005 by Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-456/05)
   (2006/C 86/17)
   Language of the case: German
   An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 23 December 2005 by Commission of the European Communities, represented by Hans Støvlbæk and Sabine Grünheid, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 43 of the EC Treaty by applying the transitional rules and rules to protect established rights, on the basis of which psychotherapists obtain admission or a permit to practise the profession independently of the applicable rules governing admission to practise the profession, only to those psychotherapists who have carried out their activities under German statutory sickness insurance schemes and by not taking into account the comparable or similar professional activities of psychotherapists in other Member States.

               2.

               order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Under the German transitional rule concerning admission to practise the profession of psychotherapist independently of need, a psychotherapist is only authorised to practise in a place of his choice without there being a need for him if he has in the past carried out, under a statutory sickness insurance scheme, previous activities which are worthy of protection. According to the Commission that rule infringes the right of establishment enshrined in Article 43 of the EC Treaty in that only activities under a German statutory sickness insurance scheme are taken into account in examining previous activities which are worthy of protection and the issue of whether the therapeutic care given to insured persons in other Member States is of equal value or is to be regarded as being similar is not examined.
   The provisions of the EC Treaty regarding the right of establishment are applicable in this case. The fact that the rule in dispute is part of German Social Security Law does not preclude that. Although Member States are entitled to develop freely their social security systems and also to settle the issue of the conditions under which psychotherapists can take part in the care provided under health insurance schemes, those rules should be in conformity with Community law provisions and, in particular, with the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the EC Treaty. This German transitional rule does not meet that requirement, as it lends itself to deterring persons from other Member States who wish to establish themselves and who have previously primarily treated insured persons in other Member States, from moving their practices to Germany.
   This German rule does not fulfil the justifying conditions which were established by the Court with respect to national measures which impede the right of establishment guaranteed by the Treaty. On the one hand it causes indirect discrimination as its nature is such that it tends to affect psychotherapists from other Member States more than German psychotherapists. Whereas German psychotherapists in the territory of the country have, namely, as a rule, also begun practising under a German statutory sickness insurance scheme, psychotherapists from other Member States have carried out no corresponding previous activities in Germany. On the other hand the restriction which the transitional rule places on those applicants who have carried out previous activities in Germany during the reference period is disproportionate: the purpose of the rule, which is to limit the number of psychotherapists who are authorised to practise independently of need, is not jeopardised if comparable activities or activities of equal value, which the migrants have carried out in other Member States, are acknowledged as previous activities which are worthy of protection. On those grounds, this case concerns a restriction of the right of establishment which is not to be regarded as justified.


title: Case C-188/15: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Asma Bougnaoui, Association de défense des droits de l’homme (ADDH) v Micropole SA, formerly Micropole Univers SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2000/78/EC — Equal treatment — Discrimination based on religion or belief — Genuine and determining occupational requirement — Meaning — Customer’s wish not to have services provided by a worker wearing an Islamic headscarf)

text:
               15.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/4

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Asma Bougnaoui, Association de défense des droits de l’homme (ADDH) v Micropole SA, formerly Micropole Univers SA
   (Case C-188/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2000/78/EC - Equal treatment - Discrimination based on religion or belief - Genuine and determining occupational requirement - Meaning - Customer’s wish not to have services provided by a worker wearing an Islamic headscarf))
   (2017/C 151/05)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de cassation

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Asma Bougnaoui, Association de défense des droits de l’homme (ADDH)

      Defendant: Micropole SA, formerly Micropole Univers SA

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 4(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as meaning that the willingness of an employer to take account of the wishes of a customer no longer to have the services of that employer provided by a worker wearing an Islamic headscarf cannot be considered a genuine and determining occupational requirement within the meaning of that provision.

      (1)  OJ C 221, 6.7.2015.


title: Case F-9/05: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 13 July 2006 — Lacombe v Council

text:
               2.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/49

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 13 July 2006 — Lacombe v Council
   (Case F-9/05) (1)

   (2006/C 212/87)

      Language of the case: French

   The President of the Tribunal sitting in full court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 115 of 14.05.2005. (case initially registered before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities under number T-116/05 and transferred to the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Communities by order of 15.12.2005).


title: Case F-131/15: Action brought on 9 October 2015 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               14.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 414/45

         Action brought on 9 October 2015 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-131/15)
   (2015/C 414/57)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martina, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the Commission’s decision not to reclassify the applicant as grade AD 13 for the 2013 reclassification year.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the decision of the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment not to reclassify the applicant as grade AD 13 for the 2013 reclassification year;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


6.9.2003               EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                      C 213/43
        Removal from the register of Case T-52/98 (1)                    European Communities ordered the removal from the register
                                                                         of Case T-292/99: Bouw- en Handelsonderneming J. Peeters
                                                                         B.V. v Commission of the European Communities.
                        (2003/C 213/83)
                   (Language of the Case: Dutch)                         (1 ) OJ C 63 of 04.03.2000.
By order of 11 June 2003 the President of the Third Chamber
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
ordered the removal from the register of Case T-52/98:
De Nederlands Antillen v Commission of the European
Communities.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-295/99 (1)
( 1) OJ C 151 of 16.05.1998.
                                                                                (2003/C 213/86)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: Dutch)
                                                                         By order of 11 June 2003 the President of the Second Chamber
        Removal from the register of Case T-53/98 (1)                    (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities ordered the removal from the register
                        (2003/C 213/84)                                  of Case T-295/99: Diesel Oil Company B.V. v Commission of
                                                                         the European Communities.
                   (Language of the Case: Dutch)
                                                                         (1 ) OJ C 63 of 04.03.2000.
By order of 11 June 2003 the President of the Third Chamber
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
ordered the removal from the register of Case T-53/98:
De Nederlands Antillen v Commission of the European
Communities.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-303/99 (1)
( 1) OJ C 166 of 30.05.1998.
                                                                                (2003/C 213/87)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: Dutch)
        Removal from the register of Case T-292/99 (1)
                                                                         By order of 11 June 2003 the President of the Second Chamber
                                                                         (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the
                        (2003/C 213/85)                                  European Communities ordered the removal from the register
                                                                         of Case T-303/99: Hoogendijk ATW B.V. v Commission of the
                                                                         European Communities.
                   (Language of the Case: Dutch)
                                                                         (1 ) OJ C 63 of 04.03.2000.
By order of 11 June 2003 the President of the Second Chamber
(Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the


title: Case C-265/09 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 September 2010 — Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) v BORCO-Marken-Import Matthiesen GmbH & Co. KG (Appeal — Community trade mark — Application for registration of the figurative sign ‘α’ — Absolute grounds for refusal — Distinctive character — Mark consisting of a single letter)

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/13

      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 September 2010 — Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) v BORCO-Marken-Import Matthiesen GmbH & Co. KG
      (Case C-265/09 P) (1)

      (Appeal - Community trade mark - Application for registration of the figurative sign ‘α’ - Absolute grounds for refusal - Distinctive character - Mark consisting of a single letter)
      (2010/C 288/19)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Appellant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent)

         Other party to the proceedings: BORCO-Marken-Import Matthiesen GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: M. Wolter, Rechtsanwalt)

         Re:

      Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) of 29 April 2009 in Case T-23/07 Borco-Marken-Import Matthiesen v OHIM (α), by which the Court annulled the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 November 2006, dismissing the action brought against the decision of the examiner refusing the registration of the figurative sign ‘α’ as a Community trade mark for goods in Class 33 — Distinctive character of a mark consisting of a single letter

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the appeal;

                  2.

                  Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 233, 26.9.2009.


title: Case T-61/00: Action brought on 20 March 2000 by Associazione Produttori Olivicoli Laziali — APOL — against Commission of the European Communities

text:
13.5.2000             EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 135/27
Action brought on 20 March 2000 by Associazione Pro-                      In support of its claim, the applicant alleges that:
duttori Olivicoli Laziali — APOL — against Commission
                of the European Communities
                                                                          — by making the ‘objective finding’ that it never ‘carried on a
                                                                              significant economic activity’, the defendant has not taken
                         (Case T-61/00)                                       into account the fact that the situation was beyond the
                                                                              applicant’s control;
                        (2000/C 135/47)
                                                                          — Infringement and misapplication of Article 17(2)(b) of
                                                                              Regulation No 355/77, in particular, inasmuch as it may
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                            be doubted whether it is correct to interpret that provision
                                                                              to mean that withdrawal of the national contribution,
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                     granted without any consultation with the other contribu-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                    ting body, should automatically entail withdrawal of
European Communities on 20 March 2000 by Associazione                         Community funding.
Produttori Olivicoli Laziali — APOL, represented by Emilio
Cappelli, Paolo De Caterini, Fabio Lepri and Romano Vaccarel-
la, of the Rome Bar.
                                                                          (1) OJ 1977 L 51, p. 1.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— Annul Commission Decision C(1999)4561 of 14 Decem-
     ber 1999 in accordance with the second paragraph of
     Article 173 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, the
     second paragraph of Article 230 EC) and, in so far as
     necessary and appropriate, disapply all other measures
     flowing therefrom;
— order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                          Action brought on 20 March 2000 by the Associazione
                                                                          Italiana Produttori Olivicoli (AIPO) against the Com-
                                                                                mission of the European Communities
Pleas in law and main arguments
The present application has been brought against Commission                                        (Case T-62/00)
Decision C(1999)4561 of 14 December 1999 withdrawing
the financial contribution granted to the applicant, an associ-
ation of producers operating in Lazio, by Decision C(84)                                          (2000/C 135/48)
1100/293. The applicant observes that in March 1983 it
submitted to the Commission, through the offices of the Lazio
Regional authority and the Ministry of Agriculture, a duly                                   (Language of the case: Italian)
drawn up request seeking Community and national contri-
butions for the construction of a plant for the storing,
processing and marketing of olive oil, in accordance with                 An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Council Regulation (EEC) No 355/77 of 15 February 1977 on                 ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
common measures to improve the conditions under which                     European Communities on 20 March 2000 by the Associa-
agricultural products are processed and marketed (1).                     zione Italiana Produttori Olivicoli (AIPO), represented by
                                                                          Emilio Cappelli, Paolo De Caterini, Fabio Lepri and Romano
Once the plant had been constructed, however, the applicant               Vaccarella, of the Rome Bar.
soon found itself in difficulty with regard to running it within
the means it could afford, given the low take-up by its own
members of the marketing opportunities now open to them,                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
moreover, the market conditions had in the meantime changed
entirely. A modest level of activity was nevertheless achieved
periodically from the olive oil 1991-1992 marketing year.                 — annul Commission Decision C(1999) 4559 of 14 Decem-
Thus, in the summer of 1994, the applicant decided to seek a                  ber 1999 in accordance with Articles 173 of the EC Treaty
private partner.                                                              (now, after amendment, Article 230 EC) and Article 174
                                                                              of the EC Treaty (now Article 231 EC) and, in so far as is
                                                                              necessary and appropriate, disapply all other measures
Following certain difficulties with that partner, which led the               flowing therefrom;
applicant to bring the matter before the courts a receiver was
finally appointed. All of this was necessarily detrimental to the
applicant’s business activities.                                          — order the Commission to pay the costs of the action.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 October 2001 in Case C-267/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d'arrondissement de Luxembourg): Christiane Adam, épouse Urbing v Administration de l'enregistrement et des domaines (Sixth VAT directive — Concept of liberal profession — Managing agent of buildings in co-ownership)

text:
C 348/2                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         8.12.2001
6 October 1997 (OJ 1997 L 290, p. 18) — the Court,                          d’arrondissement de Luxembourg (Luxembourg) for a prelimi-
composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber,                             nary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, L. Sevón (Rapporteur) and                    between Christiane Adam, épouse Urbing and Administration
M. Wathelet, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,                 de l’enregistrement et des domaines — on the interpretation
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment            of Annex F(2) of the Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of
on 25 October 2001, in which it has ruled:                                  17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member
                                                                            States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value
1.    On a proper construction of Articles 2(2a) and 3a(1)(c)               added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1)
      of Council Directive 84/450/EEC of 10 September 1984                  — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: N. Colneric,
      concerning misleading and comparative advertising, as amended         President of the Chamber, V. Skouris (Rapporteur) and
      by Directive 97/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the           J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General;
      Council of 6 October 1997, the indication, in the catalogue of        R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 October 2001,
      a supplier of spare parts and consumable items suitable for the       in which it has ruled:
      products of an equipment manufacturer, of product numbers
      (OEM numbers) by which the equipment manufacturer desig-              It is for each Member State to determine and define the transactions
      nates the spare parts and consumable items which he himself           to which may be applied a reduced rate under Article 12(4) of the
      sells may constitute comparative advertising which objectively        Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the
      compares one or more material, relevant, verifiable and represen-     harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover
      tative features of goods.                                             taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of
2.    On a proper construction of Article 3a(1) (g) of Directive            assessment, until 31 December 1992, and under Article 28(2)(e) of
      84/450/EEC as amended by Directive 97/55/EC, where                    that Directive as amended by Council Directive 92/77/EEC of
      product numbers (OEM numbers) of an equipment manufac-                19 October 1992 supplementing the common system of value added
      turer are, as such, distinguishing marks within the meaning of        tax and amending Directive 77/388/EEC (approximation of VAT
      that provision, their use in the catalogues of a competing            rates), as from 1 January 1993, subject to the necessity to respect the
      supplier enables him to take unfair advantage of the reputation       principle of neutrality of the value added tax.
      attached to those marks only if the effect of the reference to
      them is to create, in the mind of the persons at whom the             The liberal professions mentioned in Annex F(2) to the Sixth
      advertising is directed, an association between the manufacturer      Directive 77/388/EEC are activities which involve a marked intellec-
      whose products are identified and the competing supplier, in          tual character, require a high-level qualification and are usually
      that those persons associate the reputation of the manufacturer’s     subject to clear and strict professional regulation. In the exercise of
      products with the products of the competing supplier. In order        such an activity, the personal element is of special importance and
      to determine whether that condition is satisfied, account should      such exercise always involves a large measure of independence in the
      be taken of the overall presentation of the advertising at issue      accomplishment of the professional activities.
      and the type of persons for whom the advertising is intended.
(1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1998.                                                   (1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         (Second Chamber)                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         of 11 October 2001                                                            (Fifth Chamber)
in Case C-267/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                                of 18 October 2001
from the Tribunal d’arrondissement de Luxembourg):
Christiane Adam, épouse Urbing v Administration de
               l’enregistrement et des domaines (1)                         in Case C-354/99: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Ireland (1)
(Sixth VAT directive — Concept of liberal profession —
         Managing agent of buildings in co-ownership)                       (Failure to fulfil obligations — Directive 86/609/EEC —
                                                                                Incomplete implementation)
                           (2001/C 348/03)
                     (Language of the case: French)                                                    (2001/C 348/04)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                          (Language of the case: English)
                    in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-267/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of               In Case C-354/99: Commission of the European Communities
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunal                        (Agent: R. Wainwright) v Ireland (Agents: initially M.A. Buck-


title: Case C-662/11: Order of the President of the Court of 21 November 2012 — European Commission v Republic of Cyprus

text:
               13.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/18

         Order of the President of the Court of 21 November 2012 — European Commission v Republic of Cyprus
   (Case C-662/11) (1)

   2013/C 108/41
   Language of the case: Greek
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 73, 10.3.2012.


title: Case T-150/08: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 November 2009 — REWE-Zentral v OHIM — Aldi Einkauf (Clina) (Community trade mark — Opposition Proceedings — Application for the Community word mark Clina — Earlier Community word mark CLINAIR — Relative ground of refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               19.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 312/28

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 November 2009 — REWE-Zentral v OHIM — Aldi Einkauf (Clina)
   (Case T-150/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition Proceedings - Application for the Community word mark Clina - Earlier Community word mark CLINAIR - Relative ground of refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2009/C 312/45
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: REWE-Zentral AG (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: M. Kinkeldey, A. Bognár and S. Schäffler, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: R. Pethke, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG (Essen, Germany) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher, L. Kolks and C. Fürsen, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 February 2008 (Case R 1484/2006-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG and REWE-Zentral AG.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders REWE-Zentral AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 158, of 21.6.2008.


title: Action brought on 24 May 1996 by the United Kingdom against the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-180/96)

text:
No C 197/ 16            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                          6 . 7. 96
Registry on 22 May 1996, for a preliminary ruling in the                Action brought on 24 May 1996 by the United Kingdom
case of Jyri Lehtonen and ASBL Castors Canada Dry                          against the Commission of the European Communities
Namur-Braine v. ASBL Fédération royale belge des sociétés                                            ( Case C-1 80/96 )
de basket-ball on the following question :
                                                                                ( 96/C 197/34 )
Are the rules of a sports federation which prohibit a club
from playing a player in the competition for the first time if          An action against the Commission of the European
he has been engaged after a specified date contrary to the              Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
Treaty of Rome ( in particular Articles 6 , 48 , 85 and 86 ) in         European Communities on 24 May 1996 by the United
the case of a professional player who is a national of a                Kingdom, represented by Lindsey Nicoll, of the Treasury
Member State of the European Union, notwithstanding the                 Solicitor's Department, acting as Agent, assisted by K. P. E.
sporting reasons put forward by the federations to justify              Lasok, QC, and David Anderson, Barrister, with an address
those rules, namely the need to prevent distortion of the               for service in Luxembourg at the British Embassy, 14
competitions ?                                                          boulevard Roosevelt.
                                                                        The applicant respectfully submits that:
                                                                        ( a ) Commission Decision 96/239/EEC ( 1 ) should be
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
Amministr^tivo Regionale per la Lombardia by order of                          annulled ; alternatively;
that court of 7 November 1995 in the case of Stefano Serbini
                 v. Ministry of Foreign Trade                           ( b ) Article 1 of Commission Decision 96/239 should be
                                                                               annulled insofar as it applies to :
                         ( Case C- 1 78/96 )
                           ( 96/C 197/33 )                                         ( i ) live bovine animals permitted to be exported from
                                                                                the United Kingdom by Decision 94/474/EEC (2 );
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                   and/or
European Communities by order of the Tribunale
Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia ( Lombardy                             ( ii ) the semen and/or embryos of live bovine animals;
Regional Administrative Court ) of 7 November 1 995 ,                                    and/or
received at the Court Registry on 22 May 1996 , for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Stefano Serbini v . Ministry                 ( iii ) meat of bovine animals less than 30 months old
of Foreign Trade on the following questions :                                            slaughtered in the United Kingdom or meat from
                                                                                bovine animals certified to come from herds that
1 . Is the purchase of unrefined gold for investment
     purposes covered by the concept of 'capital movements'                              have not experienced any case of BSE and have
     in Article 67 ( 1 ) of the Treaty which was in force until                          not been exposed to any actual or potential source
     31 December 1993 ?                                                                  of feed contaminated with the BSE agent;
                                                                                and/or
2. If an affirmative answer is given to the preceding
     question, were the provisions of Directive                                ( iv ) products obtained from bovine animals
     88/361/EEC ( 1 ) applicable to the purchase of unrefined                            slaughtered in the United Kingdom which are
     gold for investment purposes as at 31 July 1993 and did                             liable to enter the animal feed or human food
     those provisions have direct effect so as to render                                 chains and materials destined for use in medicinal
     inapplicable national provisions of the kind contained in                           products, cosmetics or pharmaceutical products;
     Article 15 of Presidential Decree No 148 of 31 March                                and/or
     1988 ?
                                                                                (v ) gelatin and/or tallow; and/or
 3 . If an affirmative answer is given to the preceding
     question, are the provisions of Directive 88/361 /EEC
                                                                                ( vi ) exports to third countries ( save to the extent that
     still applicable following the entry into force of
                                                                                there is a real risk of deflection of trade, where
     Article 73a of the EC Treaty ( added by Article G ( 15 ) of
                                                                                appropriate );
     the Treaty on European Union), according to which 'as
     from 1 January 1994, Articles 67 to 73 shall be replaced
     by Articles 73b, 73c, 73d, 73e, 73f and 73g', or is the             (c ) each of the contested acts should be annulled;
     liberalization of capital movements henceforth
     governed entirely by Articles 73b to 73g ?                          and
 4 . If the answer to the first part of the preceding question is        ( d ) the Commission should be ordered to pay the costs of
      in the negative, is Article 73b ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty now                the United Kingdom .
      applicable to the purchase of unrefined gold for
      investment purposes, and does it have direct effect ?
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments:
 (M OJ No L 178 , 8 . 7. 1988 , p . 5 .
                                                                         In brief, the contested Decision and the contested acts are
                                                                         unlawful for the following reasons:
 ---pagebreak--- 6 . 7 . 96              1 EN I                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       No C 197/ 17
( a ) insofar as it is based, as it purports to be, on the                         justification for a temporary ban on the export from the
         perceived need to allay concern among consumers in                        United Kingdom of all the items mentioned in Article 1
         order to protect the market for beef generally in                          of the contested Decision, there is no longer any
         Member States, the export ban is not within the scope                     justification for the continuation of the export ban
         of the Commission's powers or the margin of discretion                    either at all or in relation to products recognized by
         allowed to it;                                                             independent scientific bodies as being safe .
( b ) having regard in particular to the other measures                    (') Commission Decision 96/239/EC of 27 March 1996 on
         adopted in the United Kingdom and at the Community                       emergency measures to protect against bovine spongiform
         level to deal with BSE, the export ban is not, and cannot                encephalopathy ( OJ No L 78 , 28 . 3 . 1996 , p. 47).
         be, justified on the basis of any serious hazard to animal        ( 2 ) Commission Decision 94/474/EEC of 27 July 1994 concerning
                                                                                certain protection measures relating to bovine spongiform
         or human health;
                                                                                encephalopathy ( OJ No L 194, 29. 7. 1994, p. 96 ).
                                                                           ( 3 ) Council      Directive      89/662/EEC of 11   December  1989
(c ) it is therefore an unlawful impediment to the free                           concerning veterinary checks in intra-Community trade with a
                                                                                view to the completion of the internal market ( OJ No L 395 ,
         movement of goods within the Community;                                  30 . 12 . 1989 , p . 13 ).
                                                                           (4 ) Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990 concerning
( d ) the adoption of the export ban and its continuance                          veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in
                                                                                intra-Community trade in certain live animals and products
         constitute a misuse of powers ;                                          with a view to the completion of the internal market ( OJ No
                                                                                L 224 , 18 . 8 . 1990, p . 29 ).
( e ) the export ban is disproportionate whether it was
         imposed or is being maintained in order to allay
         concern among consumers or in order to protect
         against a perceived threat to animal or human
         health;
 ( f) the export ban discriminates between consumers in the                Removal from the register of Joined Cases C-261/94 and
         United Kingdom and consumers in other Member                                                          C-262/94 ( l )
         States and between producers in the United Kingdom                                                  ( 96/C 197/35 )
         and producers in other Member States, contrary to
         Articles 6 and 40 ( 3 ) of the EC Treaty;
                                                                            By order of 7 February 1996 , the President of the Court of
 (g) the export ban is inconsistent with the objectives of the             Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
          Common Agricultural Policy set out in Article 39 ( 1 ) of         from the Register of Joined Cases C-261 /94 and C-262/94 :
         the EC Treaty;                                                     ( References for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice
                                                                            Conciliatore di Trieste ): Centralsped Sri v . Amministrazione
                                                                            delle Finanze dello Stato ( C-261 /94 ) and For Trans Sri v .
 ( h ) the contested Decision in various respects infringes the             Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato ( C-262/94 ).
          principle of legal certainty, fails to state the reasons for
          its adoption and, as the Commission contends, covers
                                                                            (') OJ No C 316 , 12 . 11 . 1994 .
          products that, as the United Kingdom contends, fall
          outside the scope of the powers purportedly exercised
          by the Commission;
  ( i ) by maintaining the contested Decision in force, the
          contested acts are vitiated by the same defects;
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C- 1 9 5/94 ( )
  (j ) Directive 89/662/EEC ( 3 ) and Directive 90/425/EEC ( 4 )
          are unlawful and therefore inapplicable if and insofar                                              ( 96/C 197/36 )
          as they purport to provide the legal basis for the
          extension of the export ban to products falling outside
          the scope of the powers purportedly exercised by the               By order of 27 March 1996 , the President of the Court of
           Commission;
                                                                            Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                             from the Register of Case C-l 95/94 (Reference for a
                                                                             preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Koblenz ): José
   ( k ) it is manifest that the export ban is and was                       Oliveira-Neves v . Bundesanstalt fiir Arbeit.
           counterproductive and is not in the interests of any
           Member State;
                                                                             f 1 ) OJ No C 233 , 20 . 8 . 1994 .
   (1)     even if, contrary to the United Kingdom's primary
           submission, there was a sufficient and a lawful


title: Case C-629/15 P: Appeal brought on 24 November 2015 by Novartis Europharm Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 15 September 2015 in Case T-472/12: Novartis Europharm Ltd v European Commission

text:
               1.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/39

         Appeal brought on 24 November 2015 by Novartis Europharm Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 15 September 2015 in Case T-472/12: Novartis Europharm Ltd v European Commission
   (Case C-629/15 P)
   (2016/C 038/53)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Novartis Europharm Ltd (represented by: C. Schoonderbeek, avocate)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Teva Pharma BV

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside the Judgment under appeal in that, by that judgment, the General Court dismissed the action of annulment in case T-472/12,

               —

               Remit the case back to the General Court, if necessary, and

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By its application for annulment in Case T-472/12 Novartis requested the General Court to annul the Commission Implementing Decision C(2012) 5894 final of 16 August 2012 granting a marketing authorisation in accordance with Regulation (EC) No. 726/2004 (1) for the medicinal product for human use ‘Zoledronic acid Teva Pharma — zoledronic acid’ because this decision constitutes a violation of Novartis’ data exclusivity rights for its medicinal product Aclasta pursuant to Article 13(4) of Regulation (EC) No. 2309/93 (2) read in conjunction with Article 14(11) and 89 of Regulation (EC) No. 726/2004 and Article 6(1) of Directive 2001/83/EC (3). By the judgment under appeal the application of annulment was dismissed.
   In support of this appeal, the appellant claims that the General Court made an error in law in that it incorrectly interpreted Article 6(1) of Directive 2001/83/EC, which lays down the concept of the global marketing authorisation, and because the General Court failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons in the judgment under appeal.
   In this respect the appellant claims first that the judgment under appeal is based on a misunderstanding of the wording and purpose of Article 6(1) of Directive 2001/83/EC and of the legal framework for the authorisation of new therapeutic indications and on the incorrect assumption that the appellant’s interpretation of the Article 6(1) of Directive 2001/83/EC would facilitate manipulation and circumvention of data protection and indefinite extension of data protection for reference medicinal products.
   Second, the appellant claims that the General Court’s conclusion that Article 6(1) of Directive 2001/83/EC applies to Aclasta because this medicinal product could have been authorised as variation or extension of the medicinal product Zometa runs counter to the principle of legal certainty and would take away the incentive for pharmaceutical companies to invest in research and development of new treatments and is therefore not in the interest of public health.
   It is on the basis of this incorrect interpretation of Article 6(1) of Directive 2001/83 that the General Court failed to recognize that the Commission Implementing Decision constitutes an infringement of Novartis data protection rights for Aclasta under Article 13(4) of Regulation 2309/93, read in conjunction with Article 14(11) and Article 89 of Regulation 726/2004, and that, for this reason, the Commission Implementing Decision had to be annulled.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency OJ L 136, p. 1

      (2)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93 of 22 July 1993 laying down Community procedures for the authorization and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products OJ L 214, p. 1

      (3)  Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use OJ L 311, p. 67


title: Case T-344/15: Judgment of the General Court of 5 April 2017 — France v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents sent under the procedure laid down in Directive 98/34/EC — Documents originating from a Member State — Access granted — Exception for the protection of court proceedings — Exception for the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations or audits — Prior agreement of the Member State)

text:
               22.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/23

         Judgment of the General Court of 5 April 2017 — France v Commission
   (Case T-344/15) (1)

   ((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents sent under the procedure laid down in Directive 98/34/EC - Documents originating from a Member State - Access granted - Exception for the protection of court proceedings - Exception for the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations or audits - Prior agreement of the Member State))
   (2017/C 161/31)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: French Republic (represented initially by F. Alabrune, G. de Bergues, D. Colas and F. Fize, and subsequently by D. Colas and B. Fodda, and then by D. Colas, B. Fodda and E. de Moustier, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, T. Müller and J. Vláčil, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking the annulment of Commission Decision Ares (2015) 1681819 of 21 April 2015, granting to a citizen access to documents sent by the French Republic in accordance with the procedure laid down in Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations (OJ 1998 L 204, p. 37).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the French Republic to pay the costs, including those relating to the action for interim measures;

               3.

               Orders the Czech Republic to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 270, 17.8.2015.


title: Case T-173/14: Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — WeserWind v Commission (State aid — Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings — Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU — Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               7.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/51

         Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — WeserWind v Commission
   (Case T-173/14) (1)

   ((State aid - Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings - Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU - Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate))
   (2015/C 294/61)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: WeserWind GmbH Offshore Construction Georgsmarienhütte (Bremerhaven, Germany) (represented by: H. Höfler, C. Kahle and V. Winkler, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents, and by C. Renner, lawyer)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: EFTA Surveillance Authority (represented by: initially X. Lewis, M. Schneider and A. Steinarsdóttir, then X. Lewis, M. Schneider, M. Moustakali and C. Perrin, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application to annul in part Commission decision C (2013) 4424 final of 18 December 2013 to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU regarding measures implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users (State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN)).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

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

               2.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications for intervention submitted by Flachglas Torgau GmbH and Saint-Gobain Isover G+H AG, by Kronotex GmbH & Co. KG and Kronoply GmbH, by Bayer MaterialScience AG, by Sabic Polyolefine GmbH, by Ineos Manufacturing Deutschland GmbH, Ineos Phenol GmbH and Ineos Vinyls Deutschland GmbH, and by Advansa GmbH, Akzo Nobel Industrial Chemicals GmbH, Aurubis AG, CBW Chemie GmbH, CFB Chemische Fabrik Brunsbüttel GmbH & Co. KG, Clariant Produkte (Deutschland) GmbH, Dralon GmbH, Hahl Filaments GmbH, Messer Produktionsgesellschaft mbH Siegen, Messer Produktionsgesellschaft mbH Salzgitter, Nabaltec AG, Siltronic AG and Wacker Chemie AG.

               3.

               WeserWind GmbH Offshore Construction Georgsmarienhütte shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures.

               4.

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 17 December 1997 in Case T-166/95: Mary Karagiozopoulou v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Internal competition for appointing category C staff to category B - Decision of the selection board listing candidates who failed the oral test - Principle of equality of treatment - Assessment by the selection board)

text:
C 41/18               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   7.2.98
the definitive anti-dumping measures applying to imports           of: K. Lenaerts, President, and P. Lindh and J. D. Cooke,
into the Community of urea originating in the former               Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
USSR and terminating the anti-dumping measures                     given a judgment on 17 December 1997, in which it:
applying to imports into the Community of urea
originating in the former Czechoslovakia (OJ L 49,
4.3.1995, p. 1) Ð the Court of First Instance of the               1. dismisses the action;
European Communities (Fourth Chamber, Extended
Composition), composed of K. Lenaerts, President, P.
Lindh, J. Azizi, J. D. Cooke and M. Jaeger, Judges; B.
Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given      2. orders the parties to bear their own costs.
a judgment on 17 December 1997 in which it:
                                                                   (1) OJ C 268, 14.10.1995.
1. dismisses the application;
2. orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay
     the costs of the Council;                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 17 December 1997
3. orders the Commission to bear its own costs.                    in Case T-216/95: Ana María Moles García OrtuÂzar v.
                                                                          Commission of the European Communities (1)
(1) OJ C 189, 22.7.1995.                                           (Officials Ð Internal competition for advancement from
                                                                   category C to category B Ð Decision of the selection
                                                                   board failing candidates at the oral test Ð Scope of the
                                                                   obligation to state reasons Ð Assessment by the selection
                                                                                board)
                                                                                (98/C 41/37)
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                     of 17 December 1997
in Case T-166/95: Mary Karagiozopoulou v. Commission
                                                                   In Case T-216/95: Ana María Moles García OrtuÂzar, an
               of the European Communities (1)
                                                                   official of the Commission of the European Communities,
(Officials Ð Internal competition for appointing category          residing in Brussels, represented by Marc-Albert Lucas, of
C staff to category B Ð Decision of the selection board            the LieÁge Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
listing candidates who failed the oral test Ð Principle of         at the Chambers of Evelyne Korn, 21 Rue de Nassau, v.
equality of treatment Ð Assessment by the selection                Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
                            board)                                 Gianluigi Valsesia and Ana Maria Alves Vieira) Ð
                                                                   application, first, for annulment of the decision of the
                         (98/C 41/36)                              selection board in internal competition COM/B/9/93 not
                                                                   to enter the applicant's name on the list of suitable
                                                                   candidates and, second, for annulment of the notice of
                                                                   that competition Ð the Court of First Instance (Fourth
                (Language of the case: French)                     Chamber), composed of: K. Lenaerts, President, and P.
                                                                   Lindh and J. D. Cooke, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator,
                                                                   for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 December
                                                                   1997, in which it:
In Case T-166/95: Mary Karagiozopoulou, an official of
the Commission of the European Communities, residing in
Brussels, represented by Ariane Tornel and Thierry
Demaseure, and, in the oral procedure, by Jean-NoeÈl               1. dismisses the action;
Louis, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30
Rue de Cessange, v. Commission of the European                     2. orders the parties to bear their own costs.
Communities (Agent: Gianluigi Valsesia) Ð application
for annulment of the decision of the selection board in
internal competition COM/B/9/93 awarding the applicant             (1) OJ C 16, 20.1.1996.
a lower mark for the oral test than the minimum required
and excluding her from the list of successful candidates Ð
the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 12 December 2000 in Case T-201/99: Royal Olympic Cruises Ltd and Others v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (Non-contractual liability of the Community — Damage caused by the military intervention in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia — Action manifestly unfounded in law)

text:
C 118/38                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    21.4.2001
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
                                                                                INSTANCE
                      of 12 December 2000
                                                                                of 31 October 2000
in Case T-201/99: Royal Olympic Cruises Ltd and Others
v Council of the European Union and Commission of the
                   European Communities (1)                               in Case T-84/00 R: Laboratórios Roussel, Limitada, and
                                                                          Laboratoires Roussel Diamant S.a.r.l. v Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities
(Non-contractual liability of the Community — Damage
caused by the military intervention in the Federal Republic
    of Yugoslavia — Action manifestly unfounded in law)                   (Interlocutory proceedings — Withdrawal of marketing
                                                                          authorisation for medicinal products for human use contain-
                                                                          ing clobenzorex — Directive 75/319/EEC — Urgency —
                                                                                Need to balance interests)
                         (2001/C 118/105)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/106)
                    (Language of the case: Greek)
In Case T-201/99: Royal Olympic Cruises Ltd, Valentine                                       (Language of the case: German)
Oceanic Trading Inc., Caroline Shipping Inc., Simpson Navi-
gation Ltd, Solar Navigation Corporation, Ocean Quest Sea
Carriers Ltd, Athena 2004 SA, Freewind Shipping Company,
established in Monrovia (Liberia), Elliniki Etaireia Diipeirotikon        In Case T-84/00 R: Laboratórios Roussel, Lda, of Mem
Grammon AE, established in Piraeus (Greece), represented by               Martins (Portugal), and Laboratoires Roussel Diamant S.a.r.l.,
N. Skandamis, of the Athens Bar, and A. Potamianaos, of the               of Puteaux (France), represented by B. Sträter, Rechtsanwalt,
Piraeus Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the             Bonn, Germany, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
Chambers of S. Le Goueff, 9 Avenue Guillaume, against                     the Chambers of Bonn and Schmidt, 7 Val Sainte-Croix,
Council of the European Union (Agents: M. Vitsentzatos                    against Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
and S. Kyriakopoulou) and Commission of the European                      H. Støvlbæk and B. Wägenbaur) — application for the
Communities (Agents: T. Christoforou and A. Van Solinge) —                suspension of application of the decision of the Commission
application for compensation to make good the damage                      of 9 March 2000 concerning the withdrawal of authorisations
allegedly caused to the applicants as a result of the conduct of          for placing on the market medicinal products for human
the European Community during the military intervention in                consumption containing, in particular, clobenzorex — the
Kosovo between 24 March and 9 June 1999 — the Court of                    President of the Court of First Instance made an order on
First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of A.W.H. Meij,                 31 October 2000, the operative part of which is as follows:
President, A. Potocki and J. Pirrung, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
made an order on 12 December 2000, the operative part of
which is as follows:                                                      1.   The application to the applicants of the decision of the
                                                                               Commission of 9 March 2000 concerning the withdrawal of
                                                                               authorisations for placing on the market medicinal products
1.    The application is dismissed as manifestly unfounded in law.             for human consumption containing clobenzorex, fenbutrazat,
                                                                               fenproporex, mazindol, mefenorex, norpseudoephedrine, phen-
                                                                               metrazine, phendimetrazine and propylhexedrine (C(2000)
2.    The parties shall bear their own costs.                                  608) is suspended.
                                                                          2.   Costs are reserved.
(1) OJ C 366, 18.12.1999.


title: Case T-392/94: Action brought on 19 December 1995 by Diarmuid Rossa Phelan against the Council of the European Union

text:
 No C 400 / 14                         Official Journal of the European Communities                               31 . 12 . 94
                                          COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Action brought on 5 December 1994 by Ernst-Ulrich                — declare that the applicant is now entitled to enter the
Horn against Council of the European Union and                       competition at its current stage,
        Commission of the European Communities
                       (Case T-383/94)                           — order the Council to pay the applicant (a fixed sum)
                                                                     for material and non-material damage and expenses
                        (94/C 400/03)                                incurred,
               (Language of the case: German)                    — order the Council to pay the costs.
An action against the Council of the European Union              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
and Commission of the European Communities was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the                The applicant states that he completed an application for
European Communities on 5 December 1994 by                       Open Competition Council/A/ 338 and posted it on
Ernst-Ulrich Horn, Kembs (Federal Republic of                    Monday 28 February 1994, the closing date. Never
Germany), represented by Dr Lukanow, Rechtsanwalt,               theless, the Directorate for Personnel and Administration
Euskirchen, with an address for service in Luxembourg            of the Council decided not to admit him to the tests for
at the Chambers of Dupong & Associes, 14a Rue des                that competition on the ground that the envelope
Bains .
                                                                 containing his documentation was not postmarked and
The applicant claims that the Court should :                     that the stamp indicating receipt by the mail department
                                                                 was dated 3 March 1994 .
Order the defendants to pay to the applicant compen
sation for the period of five milk years from 1 April 1988       The applicant maintains, on the one hand, that posting
in the amount of DM 41 855, together with interest               the application before midnight on 28 February 1994 is
thereon at 8 °/o from 26 January 1985.                           sufficient for an application to the competition and, on
                                                                 the other hand, that the language used in Part VI of the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:              Notification of Competition is not mandatory, at least in
                                                                 so far as the postmark cannot be considered to be a sine
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those         qua non of an admissible application.
in Case T-20/94 .
                                                                 The applicant considers that, given the wording of
                                                                 Section VI, a dispute as to the date of postage can be
                                                                 resolved either by accepting applications for a reasonable
                                                                 time after 28 February, beyond which the onus of
                                                                 proving postage would shift to the applicant, or, even on
                                                                 a very strict view of the matter, by requiring the
                                                                 applicant to supply proof of posting. The applicant is
                                                                 willing and able to prove postage.
Action brought on 19 December 1994 by Diarmuid
Rossa Phelan against the Council of the European Union
                       (Case T-392/94)
                        (94/C 400/04)
               (Language of the case: English)
An action against the Council of the European Union
was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 19 December 1994 by                      Action brought on 28 December 1994 by Gerjet
Diarmuid Rossa Phelan, represented by Desmond                    Meyenburg against Council of the European Union and
O'Neill, Law Library Building, 158 /9 Church Street,                     Commission of the European Communities
Dublin.                                                                               (Case T-397/94)
The applicant claims that the Court should :                                           (94/C 400/05)
— annul the decision of 16 September 1994 whereby the                          (Language of the case : German)
    Directorate for Personnel and Administration in
    Open Competition refused to admit the applicant to           An action against the Council of the European Union
    the tests for the competition,                               and Commission of the European Communities was