title: Case T-260/99: Action brought on 26 October 1999 by Marie-Josée Bollendorff against the European Parliament

text:
C 366/30                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                    18.12.1999
The applicants claim that the Court should:                                    — the contested interpretation infringes fundamental
                                                                                rights, by disregarding the right to freedom of associ-
— annul the decision of the European Parliament dated                               ation and the principle of equal treatment.
    14 September 1999 concerning the interpretation of the
    Rules of Procedure;
— declare the interpretation of Rule 29(1) of the Rules of
    Procedure proposed by the Committee on Constitutional
    Affairs and the Rules of Procedure to be contrary to the
    Community legal order, the rule of law, the founding
    principles of the Union and fundamental rights.                        Action brought on 26 October 1999 by Marie-Josée
                                                                                Bollendorff against the European Parliament
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                     (Case T-260/99)
The applicants, who are Members of the European Parliament,                                         (1999/C 366/64)
state that on 19 July 1999 the constitution of the ‘Groupe
Technique des Députés Indépendants (TDI) — Groupe mixte’
was communicated to the President of the Parliament, in                                       (Language of the case: French)
accordance with Rule 29 of the Parliament’s Rules of Pro-
cedure. At the plenary sitting on 20 July all the political groups         An action against the European Parliament was brought before
opposed the creation of that mixed group. The Committee on                 the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
Constitutional Affairs and the Rules of Procedure was therefore            26 October 1999 by Marie-Josée Bollendorff, resident in
called upon to provide an opinion on the conformity of that                Bertrange, Luxembourg, represented by Laurent Mosar, of the
new group with Rule 29(1) of the Rules of Procedure. It                    Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
proposed an interpretation to the effect that it is not possible,          at his Chambers, 8 Rue Notre-Dame.
within the meaning of that rule, to accept the constitution of a
group which openly denies possessing any political character
and the existence of any political affinities between its                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
members. On 14 September 1999 the matter was submitted
to a vote of the Parliament, which, by a simple majority,                  — annul the decision by which the appointing authority held
adopted the interpretation proposed by the Committee. It is                    her absence from 9 March 1999 to 12 March 1999 to be
that decision of the Parliament which is contested in the                      unauthorised and deducted 28.50 working hours from her
present case.                                                                  annual leave;
                                                                           — in the alternative, in so far as is necessary annul the express
In support of their action, the applicants advance two pleas in                decision of the European Parliament, notified on 26 July
law:                                                                           1999, rejecting her complaint under Article 90(2) of the
                                                                               Staff Regulations;
(a) T h e d i s c r i m i n a t o r y n a t u r e o f t h e c o n -
    tested decision:                                                       — order the European Parliament to pay the applicant the
                                                                               sum of LUF 100 000 by way of damages for non-pecuniary
    — the contested interpretation necessarily involves                        harm;
         unequal treatment, inasmuch as it has the effect of
         denying the Members concerned the administrative                  — order the European Parliament to pay the costs.
         advantages and the benefit of being able to participate
         in the work of the Parliament which are conferred by
         membership of a Parliamentary group;                              Pleas in law and main arguments
    — the contested interpretation diverges from most Euro-                The applicant disputes that her absences were improper,
         pean legislative systems and parliamentary practices.             contending:
(b) F a i l u r e t o r e s p e c t t h e C o m m u n i t y ’ s            — that the second paragraph of Article 25 of the Staff
    legal order and the rule of law in the                                     Regulations has been infringed in that the defendant did
    substantive sense of the term:                                             not notify her of any decision withdrawing days of leave;
    — the contested interpretation violates the general prin-              — that her right to a fair hearing has been infringed in that
         ciple of legal certainty, in that it is manifestly contrary           she was not asked to explain her conduct, in particular as
         to the spirit of the Rules of Procedure and fails to                  regards her failure to attend the medical examinations. Nor
         observe the principle of the protection of legitimate                 should the validity of the medical certificate produced by
         expectations, which has crystallised around the pro-                  her have been denied without her first undergoing a
         vision in question over the last twenty years;                        medical examination;
 ---pagebreak--- 18.12.1999            EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 366/31
— that Article 60 of the Staff Regulations has been                     Partial removal from the register in Joined Cases T-320/94
     erroneously applied in that the aim of that provision is to                                  and Others (1)
     penalize the production of medical certificates issued
     purely to oblige the patient and not the infringement of a                                 (1999/C 366/67)
     duty of good faith. Since the defendant alleged that the
     applicant had infringed a duty of good faith, it was required
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
     to found its decision solely on Article 86 of the Staff
     Regulations instead of on Article 60.
                                                                        By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Fourth
The applicant submits finally that, by failing to comply with           Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
the Staff Regulations and refusing to assist her in proceedings         Communities has ordered the removal of Cases T-320/94,
against the medical officer, the defendant has infringed                T-323/94, T-324/94, T-332/94, T-333/94, T-344/94,
Article 24 of those Regulations so as to give rise to liability on      T-345/94 and T-351/94 from the list of Joined Cases T-320/94
its part.                                                               and Others: Klaus Harings and Others v Council of the
                                                                        European Union and Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties.
                                                                        (1) OJ No C 351 of 10.12.1994.
Partial removal from the register in Joined Cases T-85/93
                          and Others (1)
                        (1999/C 366/65)
                                                                        Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-363/94 and
                  (Language of the case: German)                                                    Others (1)
By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Fourth                                       (1999/C 366/68)
Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities has ordered the removal                                       (Language of the case: German)
of Cases T-85/93, T-87/93, T-126/93, T-130/93, T-35/94,
T-40/94, T-198/94, T-212/94, T-227/94, T-236/94,                        By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Fourth
T-237/94, T-238/94, T-278/94, T-279/94, T-281/94,                       Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
T-283/94, T-284/94, T-349/94, T-350/94, T-357/94 and                    Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
T-360/94 from the list of Joined Cases T-85/93 and Others:              Joined Cases T-363/94 and Others: Benno and Hans Georg
Helmut Bösl and Others v Council of the European Union and              Theunissen and Others v Council of the European Union and
Commission of the European Communities.                                 Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ Nos C 178 of 18.7.1990, C 34 of 9.2.1991, C 90 of 26.3.1994,     (1) OJ No C 370 of 24.12.1994, C 400 of 31.12.1994, C 54 of
    C 218 of 6.8.1994, C 304 of 29.10.1994 and C 370 of
                                                                            4.3.1995, C 74 of 25.3.1995 and C 119 of 13.5.1995.
    24.12.1994.
Partial removal from the register in Joined Cases T-85/93               Partial removal from the register in Joined Cases T-366/94
                          and Others (1)                                                          and Others (1)
                        (1999/C 366/66)                                                         (1999/C 366/69)
                  (Language of the case: German)                                         (Language of the cases: German)
By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Fourth               By order of 29 September 1999, the President of the Fourth
Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance           Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
of the European Communities has ordered the removal of the              Communities has ordered the removal of Cases T-366/94,
names of the applicants Peter Dalhaus, Klaus Buck, Karl-Heinz           T-3/95, T-14/95, T-120/95 and T-124/95 from the list of
Rohler and Ludger Beckhoff from the list of applicants in Case          cases in Joined Cases T-366/94 and Others: Hilde Diekmeier
T-247/94 - Joined Cases T-85/93 and Others: Helmut Bösl and             and Others v Council of the European Union and Commission
Others v Council of the European Union and Commission of                of the European Communities.
the European Communities.
                                                                        (1) OJ No C 370 of 24.12.1994, No C 54 of 4.3.1995, No C 74 of
(1) OJ No C 233 of 20.8.1994.                                               25.3.1995, No C 174 of 8.7.1995 and No C 208 of 12.8.1995.


title: Case C-674/13: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 6 May 2015 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — State aid incompatible with the internal market — Parcel service market — Commission decision — Obligation to recover the aid in full and to amend the scheme for the future — Measures to be taken — Article 108(2)TFEU — Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 — Article 14(3))

text:
               29.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/8

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 6 May 2015 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-674/13) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - State aid incompatible with the internal market - Parcel service market - Commission decision - Obligation to recover the aid in full and to amend the scheme for the future - Measures to be taken - Article 108(2)TFEU - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Article 14(3)))
   (2015/C 213/11)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents,

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

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by refusing autonomously to delimit the market at issue in the context of Commission Decision 2012/636/EU of 25 January 2012 concerning measure C 36/07 (ex NN 25/07) implemented by Germany for Deutsche Post AG, in order to ascertain whether the parcel delivery service from one undertaking to another constituted, between 2003 and 2012, on the one hand, and with effect from 2012, on the other, a separate market in the goods at issue, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 108(2) TFEU and 14(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article [108 TFEU], and Articles 1 and 4 to 6 of that decision;

               2.

               Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 45, 15.2.2014.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 26 November 2003 in Case T-222/02: HERON Robotunits GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Word mark ROBOTUNITS — Absolute grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Descriptive character)

text:
24.1.2004              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 21/33
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               against Economic and Social Committee of the European
                                                                          Communities (Agents: M. Bermejo Garde and D. Waelbroeck)
                     of 26 November 2003                                  — application for annulment of the decisions of the Bureau
                                                                          of the Economic and Social Committee of the European
                                                                          Communities of 20 September 2001 rejecting the applicant’s
in Case T-222/02: HERON Robotunits GmbH v Office for                      candidature for the post of head of the Italian Translation
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and                     and Transcription Division of the Logistics and Translation
                       Designs) (OHIM) (1)                                Directorate and the decision of 16 October 2001 appointing
                                                                          another candidate to the post — the Court of First Instance
(Community trade mark — Word mark ROBOTUNITS —                            (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. García-Valdecasas, President,
Absolute grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation              and P. Lindh and J. D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio González,
           (EC) No 40/94 — Descriptive character)                         Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on
                                                                          11 November 2003, in which it:
                          (2004/C 21/69)
                                                                          1.    dismisses the application.
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                          2.    orders the parties to bear their own costs.
In Case T-222/02, HERON Robotunits GmbH, established
                                                                          (1) OJ C 247 of 12.10.2002.
in Lustenau (Austria), represented by M. Bergermann and
R. Hackbarth, lawyers, v Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents:
S. Bonne and G. Schneider): Action against the decision of the
First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 May 2002
(Case R 1095/2000-1) refusing to register the word mark
ROBOTUNITS as a Community trade mark, the Court of First
Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: V. Tiili, President,                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
P. Mengozzi and M. Vilaras, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 26 November 2003, in                                         of 25 November 2003
which it:
                                                                          in Case T-286/02: Oriental Kitchen SARL v Office for
1.    Dismisses the action;                                               Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                                                                                Designs) (OHIM) (1)
2.    Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                                                                          (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings —
(1) OJ C 233 of 28.9.2002.                                                Application for the Community word mark KIAP MOU —
                                                                            Earlier national word marks MOU — Refusal to register)
                                                                                (2004/C 21/71)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                     of 11 November 2003                                                      (Language of the case: French)
in Case T-248/02: Carla Faita v Economic and Social
        Committee of the European Communities (1)
                                                                          In Case T-286/02, Oriental Kitchen SARL, established in
                                                                          Choisy-le-Roi (France), represented by J.-J. Sebag, lawyer, v
(Officials — Vacancies — Article 29(1) of the Staff Regu-                 Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
lations — Appointments procedure — Manifest error of                      and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: B. Lory, O. Waelbroeck and
             assessment — Statement of reasons)                           O. Montalto), the intervener before the Court being Mou
                                                                          Dybfrost A/S, established in Esbjerg N (Denmark), represented
                          (2004/C 21/70)                                  by T. Steffensen, lawyer: Action against the decision of the
                                                                          Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the
                   (Language of the case: French)                         Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 28 June 2002
                                                                          (Case R 114/2001-4) in respect of the opposition of the
                                                                          proprietor of the national trade marks MOU to registration of
                                                                          the sign KIAP MOU as a Community trade mark, the Court of
In Case T-248/02: Carla Faita, official of the Economic and               First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of: N. J. Forwood,
Social Committee of the European Communities, residing in                 President, J. Pirrung and A. W. H. Meij, Judges; D. Christensen,
Brussels, represented by A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, É. Marchal and           Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
S. Orlandi, with an address for service in Luxembourg,                    25 November 2003, in which it:


title: Case T-68/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 March 2009 — Aker Warnow Werft and Kvaerner v Commission (State aid — Shipbuilding — Former German Democratic Republic — Aid paid to cover losses from shipbuilding contracts — Competition aid — No excess payment)

text:
               18.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 90/22

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 March 2009 — Aker Warnow Werft and Kvaerner v Commission
   (Case T-68/05) (1)

   (State aid - Shipbuilding - Former German Democratic Republic - Aid paid to cover losses from shipbuilding contracts - Competition aid - No excess payment)
   2009/C 90/34
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Aker Warnow Werft GmbH (Rostock, Germany); and Kvaerner ASA (Oslo, Norway) (represented by: M. Schütte, lawyer, and B. Immenkamp, Solicitor, and then by M. Schütte)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Kreuschitz and L. Flynn, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2005/374/EC of 20 October 2004 on a State aid measure implemented by Germany for Kvaerner Warnow Werft (OJ 2005 L 120, p. 21).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision 2005/374/EC of 20 October 2004 on a State aid measure implemented by Germany for Kvaerner Warnow Werft;

               2.

               Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Aker Warnow Werft GmbH and Kvaerner ASA.

      (1)  OJ C 106, 30.4.2005.


title: Case C-381/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesgericht Wien (Austria) by order of that court of 15 June 1999 in the case of Dr Susanna Brunnhofer v Bank der österreichischen Postsparkasse Aktiengesellschaft

text:
C 6/12                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        8.1.2000
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanz-                1b) If the reply to Question 1a) is in the negative: In the
hof by order of that court of 5 August 1999 in the case of                 situation described in Question 1a), is the same classifi-
     Bertelsmann AG against Finanzamt Wiedenbrück                          cation in the collective agreement an indication of the
                                                                           same work or work of equal value within the meaning of
                                                                           Article 119 (now Article 141) of the Treaty and of
                         (Case C-380/99)                                   Directive 75/117/EEC, with the result that it is for the
                                                                           employer to prove that the activities in question are
                          (2000/C 6/22)                                    different?
                                                                       1c) Can the employer rely on circumstances not taken into
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     account in collective agreements in order to justify a
European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof                       difference in pay?
(Federal Finance Court) of 5 August 1999, received at the
Court Registry on 8 October 1999, for a preliminary ruling in          1d) If the reply to Question 1a) or 1b) is in the affirmative:
the case of Bertelsmann AG v Finanzamt Wiedenbrück on the                  Does this also apply if the classification in the professional
following question:                                                        category under the collective agreement is based on a job
                                                                           description in very general terms?
Is Article 11(A)(1)(a) of the Sixth Council Directive of 17 May
1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States             2a) Is there a definition of ‘worker’ underlying Article 119
relating to turnover taxes (77/388/EEC) (1) to be interpreted as           (now Article 141) of the Treaty and Directive 75/117/EEC
meaning that the taxable amount in respect of the supply of a              which is uniform at least in so far as the worker’s obligation
bonus payable in kind, which is sent to the recipient in                   under the contract of employment depends not only on
exchange for recruiting a new client, includes not only the                generally defined standards, but also on the individual
purchase price of the bonus but also the delivery costs?                   capability of the worker himself?
                                                                       2b) Are Article 119 (now Article 141) of the Treaty and Article
(1) OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.                                                   1 of Directive 5/117/EEC to be interpreted as meaning
                                                                           that a difference in pay may be objectively justified by
                                                                           circumstances which can be established only ex post facto,
                                                                           particularly the result of the work of a specific employee?
                                                                       (1) OJ 1975 L 45, p. 19.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesge-
richt Wien (Austria) by order of that court of 15 June
1999 in the case of Dr Susanna Brunnhofer v Bank der
     österreichischen Postsparkasse Aktiengesellschaft
                         (Case C-381/99)                               Appeal brought on 8 October 1999 by The Procter &
                                                                       Gamble Company against the judgment delivered on
                                                                       8 July 1999 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First
                          (2000/C 6/23)                                Instance of the European Communities in Case T-163/98
                                                                       between The Procter & Gamble Company and the Office
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks
European Communities by order of the Oberlandesgericht                                           and designs)
Wien (Regional Court of Appeal, Vienna) (Austria) of 15 June
1999, received at the Court Registry on 8 October 1999, for a                                 (Case C-383/99 P)
preliminary ruling in the case of Dr Susanna Brunnhofer v
Bank der österreichischen Postsparkasse Aktiengesellschaft on
the following questions:                                                                        (2000/C 6/24)
1a) With regard to the question whether work is ‘equal work’           An appeal against the judgment delivered on 8 July 1999 by
    or ‘the same job’ within the meaning of Article 119 (now           the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
    Article 141) of the EC Treaty or is ‘the same work’ or             European Communities in Case T-163/98 between The Procter
    ‘work to which equal value is attributed’ within the               & Gamble Company and the Office for Harmonisation in the
    meaning of Directive 75/117/EEC (1), is it sufficient, in          Internal Market (trade marks and designs) was brought before
    connection with the stipulation in an individual contract          the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
    of employment of supplements to the pay determined by              8 October 1999 by The Procter & Gamble Company, rep-
    a collective agreement, to ascertain whether the two               resented by Thierry van Innis, of the Brussels Bar, with an
    workers being compared are classified in the same pro-             address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Katia
    fessional category under the collective agreement?                 Manhaeve, 56-58 Rue Charles Martel.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 February 1999 in Case C-90/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Social Security Commissioner): Robin Swaddling v. Adjudication Officer (Social Security - Income support - Conditions of entitlement - Habitual residence)

text:
C 121/4                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           1.5.1999
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         (Third Chamber)
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                       of 25 February 1999
in Case C-65/97: Commission of the European Communi-                                              of 25 February 1999
ties v. Cascina Laura di Arch. Aldo Delbó e C. and
            Gariboldi Engineering Company Srl (1)
                                                                           in Case C-90/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
(Article 181 of the EC Treaty — Arbitration clause —                       the Social Security Commissioner): Robin Swaddling v.
                 Non-performance of a contract)                                                  Adjudication Officer (1)
                          (1999/C 121/06)
                                                                           (Social Security — Income support — Conditions of
                                                                                entitlement — Habitual residence)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                (1999/C 121/07)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-65/97: Commission of the European Communities                                        (Language of the case: English)
(Agents: Paolo Stancanelli and Jean-francis Pasquier, assisted
by Alberto Dal Ferro) v. Cascina Laura Sas di Arch. Aldo Delbó
e C., in arrangement with its creditors, whose registered office
                                                                           In Case C-90/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
is at Casaleggio Novara (Italy), in the person of its provisional
                                                                           the EC Treaty by the Social Security Commissioner (United
legal representative, and Gariboldi Engineering Company Srl,
                                                                           Kingdom) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
in liquidation, whose registered office is in Milan (Italy), in the
person of its liquidator, Ester Dallarosa, represented by Alberto          before that court between: Robin Swaddling and Adjudication
Croze, Rodolfo Radice and Cristina Ravelli, of the Milan Bar               Officer — on the interpretation of Article 48 of the EC Treaty
                                                                           — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President
— application under Article 181 of the EC Treaty for
                                                                           of the First Chamber, acting as President of the Fifth Chamber,
reimbursement of monies paid under contract No BM 5/89 IT,
                                                                           J.C. Moitinho de Almeida (Rapporteur), C. Gulmann, L. Sevón
terminated by the applicant for non-performance by the
defendants — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: J.-P.                 and M. Wathelet, Judges; Advocate-General: A. Saggio; L.
Puissochet (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, J. C. Moit-             Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
                                                                           on 25 February 1999, in which it held that:
inho de Almeida and C. Gulmann, Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate-
General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
a judgment on 25 February 1999, in which it:
                                                                           Article 10a of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June
                                                                           1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed
                                                                           persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families
1. takes formal note that the Commission of the European                   moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council
     Communities has withdrawn its claims against Cascina Laura            Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83, as amended by Council Regulation
     Sas di Arch. Aldo Delbó e C.;                                        (EEC) No 1247/92, read toegether with Article 1(h) thereof,
                                                                           precludes the Member State of origin — in the case of a person who
2. orders Gariboldi Engineering Company Srl to pay to the applicant        has exercised his right to freedom of movement in order to establish
     the sum of ECU 479 134, together with interest in the amount          himself in another Member State, in which he has worked and set up
     of ECU 1 742 per month from 31 July 1990 until the date of            his habitual residence, and who has returned to his Member State of
     final settlement, plus ECU 2 464 per month from                       origin, where his family lives, in order to seek work — from making
     20 April 1991 until the date of final settlement;                     entitlement to one of the benefits referred to in Article 10a of
                                                                           Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 conditional upon habitual residence
3. dismisses the remainder of the application;                             in that State, which presupposes not only an intention to reside there,
                                                                           but also completion of an appreciable period of residence there.
4. orders Gariboldi Engineering Company Srl and Cascina Laura
     Sas di Arch. Adldo Delbó e C. jointly and severally to pay the
     costs.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 131, 26.4.1997.
(1) OJ C 131, 26.4.1997.


title: Action brought on 19 March 1996 by the Kingdon of the Netherlands against the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-84/96)

text:
No C 133/ 18          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      4 . 5 . 96
Reference for a preliminary ruling by order of the Civil             Action brought on 19 March 1996 by the Kingdon of the
Division of the Tribunale Civile e Penale, Trento, of                Netherlands against the Commission of the European
15 February 1996 in the case of Grundig Italiana v.                                             Communities
                   Ministero delle Finanze
                                                                                Case C-84/96 )
                       ( Case C-68/96 )                                                        ( 96/C 133/39 )
                         ( 96/C 133/37 )
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the               An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Civil Division of the
Tribunale Civile e Penale ( Civil and Criminal District              European Communities on 19 March 1996 by the Kingdom
Court ), Trento, of 15 February 1996 , which was received at         of the Netherlands, represented by J. S. van den Oosterkamp
                                                                     and M. A. Fierstra , acting as Agents, with an address for
the Court Registry on 14 March 1996 , for a preliminary
                                                                     service in Luxembourg at the Netherlands Embassy, 5 Rue
ruling in the case of Grundig Italiana SpA against Ministero
                                                                     C. M. Spoo .
delle Finanze ( Ministry of Finance ) on the following
question :
                                                                     The applicant claims that the Court should :
Must Article 95 of the EC Treaty by interpreted as
prohibiting a Member State from introducing and collecting
a national consumption tax of the kind provided for by               — annul the debit note of 15 January 1996 and the
Article 4 of the Decree-Law of 30 December 1982,                         Commission decisions of 16 February 1996 concerning
converted into law by Law No 53 of 28 February 1983 , and                the completion of projects ERDF No 80.07.03.002
                                                                         ( Veendam-Musselkanaal ) and ERDF No 84.07.03.004
further governed by the Decree of the Ministry of Finance of
23 March 1983 , in so far as different taxable amounts are               (Weg Veendam ), which were co-financed prior to 1989
                                                                         by the European Regional Development Fund;
determined for domestic products and for those imported
from other Member States and different procedures are laid
down for collection of the tax on the same products ?                — order the defendant to pay the costs .
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                     The pleas in law and mains arguments adduced in support
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Netherlands Raad           are the same as those in Case C-308/95(M .
van State, by judgment of that court of 12 March 1996 in the
case of Mayor and Aldermen of Haarlemmerliede and
                                                                     (') OJ No C 299 , 11 . 11 . 1995 , p . 13 .
Spaarnwoude and Others v. Gedeputeerde Staten of
                       Noord-Holland
                       ( Case C-81 /96 )
                         ( 96/C 133/38 )
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communites by judgment of the Netherlands                   References for preliminary rulings from the Tribunale di
Raad van State ( State Council ) of 12 March 1996, which             Genova — Prima Sezione Civile — by orders of that court of
was received at the Court Registry on 18 March 1996 , for            1 February and 7 March , 1996 in the cases of ( 1 ) Palmera
a preliminary ruling in the case of Mayor and Aldermen               SpA, ( 2 ) Cesare Rognoli & Figlio Srl and ( 3 ) Igino Mazzola
of Haarlemmerliede and Spaarnwoude and Others v.                                  v. Ministero delle Finanze dello Stato
Gedeputeerde Staten ( Provincial Executive ) of Noord
Holland on the following question :                                             ( Cases C-86/96, C-87/96 and C-88/96 )
                                                                                96/C 133/40 )
Does Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the
assessment of the effects of certain public and private
projects on the environment ( 1 ) permit consent to be granted       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
for a project mentioned in Annex I to the Directive where , in       European Communities by orders of the Tribunale di
the course of the preparation of the consent, no                     Genova — Prima Sezione Civile — ( District Court, Genoa,
environmental impact assessment within the meaning of the            First Civil Section ) of 1 February and 7 March 1996,
Directive was conducted in a case in which the consent               received at the Court Registry on 21 March 19 96 , for a
relates to a project for which consent had been granted              preliminary ruling in the cases of ( 1 ) Palmera SpA, ( 2 )
before 3 July 1988 , no use was made of that consent and             Cesare Rognoli & Figlio Sri and ( 3 ) Igino Mazzola v .
no environmental impact assessment satisfying the                    Ministero delle Finanze dello Stato on the questions
requirements of the Directive was conducted in the course of         identical to those in Joined Cases C-47/95 and others ( J ).
the preparation of that consent ?
                                                                     (') OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 , p . 5 .
(') OJ No L 175 , 1985 , p . 40 .


title: Case C-151/99: Action brought on 23 April 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland

text:
3.7.1999                  EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 188/21
3. If Question 2 is answered in the affirmative, is the free              Action brought on 23 April 1999 by the Commission of
     movement of capital under Article 73b(l) of the EC Treaty                     the European Communities against Ireland
     ancillary to the other freedoms under the EC Treaty (e.g.
     freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services),
     so that the acquisition of land in a State of which an EU                                      (Case C-151/99)
     citizen is not a national which cannot be based on other
     freedoms under the EC Treaty also cannot be carried out                                        (1999/C 188/47)
     in reliance on the free movement of capital?
                                                                          An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
(1) OJ 1990 L 180, p. 26.                                                 Justice of the European Communities on 23 April 1999 by the
(2) OJ 1988 L 178, p. 5.                                                  Commission of the European Communities, represented by
                                                                          Frank Benyon, Legal Adviser, acting as agent, with an address
                                                                          for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
                                                                          Cruz, member of the legal Service of the Commission, Centre
                                                                          Wagner, Kirchberg.
                                                                          The Applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          1) declare that by failing to notify the laws, regulations or
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Svea Hovrätt,                     administrative provisions necessary to comply with
by order of that court of 26 March 1999, in the case of                       Council Directive 95/18/EC of 19 June 1995 concerning
the State against Stockholm Aktiebolag and Stockholm                          the licensing of railway undertakings (1), or by failing to
                     Lindöpark against the State                              adopt the measures necessary to comply with it, Ireland
                                                                              has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive;
                           (Case C-150/99)
                                                                          2) order Ireland to pay the costs.
                           (1999/C 188/46)
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities, by order of the Svea Hovrätt of
23 April 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of the                Article 189 of the EC Treaty, under which a directive shall be
State against Stockholm Aktiebolag and Stockholm Lindöpark                binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member
against the State on the following questions:                             State, carries by implication an obligation on the Member
                                                                          States to observe the period for compliance laid down in the
1. Do Articles 13A(l)(m) and 13B(b) (1) of the Sixth VAT                  directive. That period expired on 27 June 1997 without Ireland
     Directive preclude national provisions providing for a               having enacted the provisions necessary to comply with the
     general exemption from VAT for the supply of sports                  directive referred to in the conclusions of the Commission.
     facilities, as laid down in the second paragraph of Article 2
     of Chapter 3 of the Mervärdesskattelagen (1994:200), in
     the version in force before 1 January 1997?                          (1) OJ L 143, 27.06.95, p. 70.
2. Does Article 13, in combination with Articles 2, 6 and 17
     of the Sixth VAT Directive, confer on individuals rights on
     which they can rely as against Member States before a
     national court?
3. In the event that the first two questions are answered in
     the affirmative:
                                                                          Action brought on 23 April 1999 by the Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities against Ireland
     Does the implementation and application of the exemption
     provided for in the second paragraph of Article 2 of
     Chapter 3 of the Mervärdesskattelagen (1994:200) entail                                        (Case C-152/99)
     such a serious (clear) infringement of Community law that
     it can render a Member State liable in damages?
                                                                                (1999/C 188/48)
(1) Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the            An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
    harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to            Justice of the European Communities on 23 April 1999 by the
    turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform            Commission of the European Communities, represented by
    basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).
                                                                          Frank Benyon, Legal Adviser, acting as agent, with an address
                                                                          for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
                                                                          Cruz, member of the legal Service of the Commission, Centre
                                                                          Wagner, Kirchberg.


title: Judgment of the Court of 29 July 2016 in Case E-31/15 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland (Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2011/77/EU amending Directive 2006/116/EC on the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights)

text:
               6.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/14

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 29 July 2016
   in Case E-31/15
   EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland
   (Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2011/77/EU amending Directive 2006/116/EC on the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights)
   (2017/C 108/12)
   In Case E-31/15, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at the indent in point 9f of Annex XVII to the Agreement of the European Economic Area (Directive 2011/77/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2011 amending Directive 2006/116/EC on the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights) as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed or in any event by failing to inform the EFTA Surveillance Authority thereof, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 29 July 2016, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The Court hereby:

               1.

               Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at the indent in point 9f of Annex XVII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2011/77/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2011 amending Directive 2006/116/EC on the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights) as adapted to the Agreement under its Protocol 1, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.

               2.

               Orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.


title: Case F-103/09: Action brought on 22 December 2009 — Allen and Others v Commission

text:
               13.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/51

         Action brought on 22 December 2009 — Allen and Others v Commission
   (Case F-103/09)
   2010/C 37/80
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: John Allen (Oxford, United Kingdom) and Others (represented by: P. Lasok, I. Hutton, B. Lask, Barristers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      The subject matter and description of the proceedings

   An application for damages and for the annulment of a decision refusing to pay damages in respect of the loss suffered by each applicant as a result of the fact that each of them was not recruited as a temporary servant of the Communities during the time when they worked at the JET Joint Undertaking.

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the Commission’s Decision dated 25 September 2009;

               —

               declare that the applicants had a right to, and should have been, treated as “other personnel” and/or recruited as such, in accordance with Article 8 of the original JET Statutes;

               —

               declare that the Commission discriminated against the applicants without objective justification during their engagement on the JET Project as regards their remuneration, pension rights and related benefits, and security of future employment;

               —

               order the Commission to compensate the applicants for the loss of earnings, pensions, and related benefits and privileges occasioned by the aforesaid breaches of Community law, including interest thereon as appropriate;

               —

               order the costs of this appeal to be paid by the Commission; and

               —

               take such further measures and grant such further relief, under the Statute of the Court of Justice and/or the Rules of procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal as may be necessary, just or equitable.


title: Joined Cases C-335/11 and C-337/11: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sø- og Handelsret, Denmark) — HK Danmark, acting on behalf of Jette Ring v Dansk almennyttigt Boligselskab (C-335/11) v HK Danmark, acting on behalf of Lone Skouboe Werge v Dansk Arbejdsgiverforening, acting on behalf of Pro Display A/S, in liquidation (C-337/11) (Social policy — United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities — Directive 2000/78/CE — Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Articles 1, 2 and 5 — Difference in treatment on grounds of disability — Dismissal — Existence of a disability — Employee absent because of disability — Obligation to provide accommodation — Part-time work — Length of the period of notice)

text:
               1.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/6

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sø- og Handelsret, Denmark) — HK Danmark, acting on behalf of Jette Ring v Dansk almennyttigt Boligselskab (C-335/11) v HK Danmark, acting on behalf of Lone Skouboe Werge v Dansk Arbejdsgiverforening, acting on behalf of Pro Display A/S, in liquidation (C-337/11)
   (Joined Cases C-335/11 and C-337/11) (1)

   (Social policy - United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities - Directive 2000/78/CE - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Articles 1, 2 and 5 - Difference in treatment on grounds of disability - Dismissal - Existence of a disability - Employee absent because of disability - Obligation to provide accommodation - Part-time work - Length of the period of notice)
   2013/C 156/08
   Language of the case: Danish

      Referring court

   Sø- og Handelsret

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: HK Danmark, acting on behalf of Jette Ring (C-335/11), HK Danmark, acting on behalf of Lone Skouboe Werge (C-337/11)

      Defendant: Dansk almennyttigt Boligselskab DAB (C-335/11), Dansk Arbejdsgiverforening, acting on behalf of Pro Display A/S, in liquidation (C-337/11)

      Re:

   Requests for a preliminary ruling — Sø- og Handelsretten — Interpretation of Articles 1, 2 and 5 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16) and the judgment of the Court in Case C-13/05 Chacón Navas — Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of disability — National legislation under which an employer can dismiss an employee who has been absent because of illness, with his salary being paid, for 120 days during 12 consecutive months — Existence of a disability — Persons having a long-term reduction in their functions not requiring particular equipment and consisting only in an incapacity to work full time — Reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The concept of ‘disability’ in Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as including a condition caused by an illness medically diagnosed as curable or incurable where that illness entails a limitation which results in particular from physical, mental or psychological impairments which in interaction with various barriers may hinder the full and effective participation of the person concerned in professional life on an equal basis with other workers, and the limitation is a long-term one. The nature of the measures to be taken by the employer is not decisive for considering that a person’s state of health is covered by that concept.

               2.

               Article 5 of Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as meaning that a reduction in working hours may constitute one of the accommodation measures referred to in that article. It is for the national court to assess whether, in the circumstances of the main proceedings, a reduction in working hours, as an accommodation measure, represents a disproportionate burden on the employer.

               3.

               Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which an employer can terminate the employment contract with a reduced period of notice if the disabled worker concerned has been absent because of illness, with his salary being paid, for 120 days during the previous 12 months, where those absences are the consequence of the employer’s failure to take the appropriate measures in accordance with the obligation to provide reasonable accommodation laid down in Article 5 of that directive.

               4.

               Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which an employer can terminate the employment contract with a reduced period of notice if the disabled worker concerned has been absent because of illness, with his salary being paid, for 120 days during the previous 12 months, where those absences are the consequence of his disability, unless that legislation, as well as pursuing a legitimate aim, does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve that aim, that being for the referring court to assess.

      (1)  OJ C 269, 10.9.2011.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 December 2003 In Joined Cases T-5/00 and T-6/00: Nederlandse Federatieve Vereniging voor de Groothandel op Elektrotechnisch Gebied and Technische Unie BV v Commission of the European Communities (Decisions, agreements and concerted practices — Sale of electrotechnical fittings in the Netherlands — National association of wholesalers — Collective exclusive dealing and price-fixing agreements — Fines)

text:
20.3.2004               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 71/23
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                       of 16 December 2003
                                                                                of 17 December 2003
In Joined Cases T-5/00 and T-6/00: Nederlandse Federatie-
ve Vereniging voor de Groothandel op Elektrotechnisch                       in Case T-146/01: DLD Trading Co. v Council of the
Gebied and Technische Unie BV v Commission of the                                                  European Union (1)
                    European Communities (1)
                                                                            (Non-contractual liability — Causal link between the con-
(Decisions, agreements and concerted practices — Sale of
                                                                            duct complained of and the alleged damage — No such link)
electrotechnical fittings in the Netherlands — National
association of wholesalers — Collective exclusive dealing
              and price-fixing agreements — Fines)
                                                                                (2004/C 71/41)
                           (2004/C 71/40)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                            In Case T-146/01, DLD Trading Co., established in Brno (Czech
In Joined Cases T-5/00 and T-6/00, Nederlandse Federative
                                                                            Republic), represented by J. Hintermayr, G. Minichmayr,
Vereniging voor de Groothandel op Elektrotechnisch Gebied,
                                                                            P. Burgstaller and M. Krüger, lawyers, v Council of the
established in the Hague (Netherlands), represented by
                                                                            European Union (Agents: M.-C. Giorgi, A.-M. Colaert and
E. Pijnacker Hordijk and S.B. Noë, lawyers, applicant in
                                                                            J.-P. Hix), Republic of Austria (Agents: C. Pesendorfer and
Case T-5/00, Technische Unie BV, established in Amstelveen
                                                                            W. Okresek and H. Ossi), Commission of the European
(Netherlands), represented by P. Bos and B. Eschweiler, lawyers,
                                                                            Communities (Agent: J. Schieferer) and Republic of Finland
with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Commission of
                                                                            (Agents: T. Pynnä and A. Guimaraes-Purokoski): Application
the European Communities (Agents: W. Wils and H. Gilliams),
                                                                            for compensation for damage claimed to have been suffered
supported by CEF City Electrical Factors BV, established in
                                                                            by reason of the unlawfulness of, first, Council Regulation (EC)
Rotterdam (Netherlands), and by CEF Holdings Ltd, established
                                                                            No 2744/98 of 14 December 1998 amending Regulation (EC)
in Kenilworth (United Kingdom), represented by C. Vinken-
                                                                            No 355/94 and extending the temporary derogation applicable
Geijselaers and J. Stuyck, lawyers, with an address for service
                                                                            to Austria (OJ 1998 L 345, p. 9) and, second, Council Directive
in Luxembourg: Application for the annulment of Commission
                                                                            69/169/EEC of 28 May 1969 on the harmonisation of
Decision 2000/117/EC of 26 October 1999 concerning a
                                                                            provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative
proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case IV/
                                                                            action relating to exemption from turnover tax and excise duty
33.884 Nederlandse Federative Vereniging voor de Groothan-
                                                                            on imports in international travel (OJ, English Special Edition
del op Elektrotechnisch Gebied and Technische Unie) (OJ
                                                                            1969 (I), p. 232), as amended, the Court of First Instance (First
2000, L 39, p. 1), the Court of First Instance (First Chamber),
                                                                            Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, P. Lindh and
composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, N.J. Forwood and
                                                                            H. Legal, Judges; I. Natsinas, Administrator, for the Registrar,
H. Legal, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the Registrar,
                                                                            has given a judgment on 17 December 2003, in which it:
has given a judgment on 16 December 2003, in which it:
1.    Dismisses the applications;                                           1.    Dismisses the action;
2.    Orders the applicant in Case T-5/00 to bear its own costs and         2.    Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and those incurred
      to pay those of the Commission and of the interveners, including            by the Council;
      those relating to the application for interim measures in Case
      T-5/00 R;
                                                                            3.    Orders the Commission, the Republic of Austria and the
3.    Orders the applicant in Case T-6/00 to bear its own costs and               Republic of Finland to bear their own costs.
      to pay those of the Commission and of the interveners.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 289 of 13.10.2001.
(1) OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 November 2004 in Joined Cases C-186/02 P and C-188/02 P: Ramondín SA, Ramondín Cápsulas SA (C-186/02 P), Territorio Histórico de Álava – Diputación Foral de Álava (C-188/02 P) v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — State aid — Tax measures — Misuse of powers — Statement of reasons — New pleas in law)

text:
               8.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/3

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 11 November 2004
   in Joined Cases C-186/02 P and C-188/02 P: Ramondín SA, Ramondín Cápsulas SA (C-186/02 P), Territorio Histórico de Álava – Diputación Foral de Álava (C-188/02 P) v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Appeal - State aid - Tax measures - Misuse of powers - Statement of reasons - New pleas in law)
   (2005/C 6/05)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   In Joined Cases C-186/02 P and C-188/02 P: two appeals under Article 49 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice, brought on 15 and 16 May 2002, Ramondín SA, established in Logroño (Spain), and Ramondín Cápsulas SA, established in Laguardia (Spain), (Lawyer: J. Lazcano-Iturburu Ayestaran) C-186/02 P, Territorio Histórico de Álava – Diputación Foral de Álava (Lawyers: A. Creus Carreras, B. Uriarte Valiente and M. Bravo-Ferrer Delgado) C-188/02 P, the other parties to the proceedings being: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: F. Santaolalla Gadea and J. L. Buendía Sierra), supported by Comunidad Autónoma de La Rioja, (Lawyer: J. Criado Gámez) - the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), F. Macken, N. Colneric and J. N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; M. Múgica Azarmendi, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 November 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Joins Cases C-186/02 P and C-188/02 P for the purposes of the judgment;

               2.

               Dismisses the appeals;

               3.

               Orders the appellants, in addition to bearing their own costs, to pay those incurred by the Commission and the Comunidad Autónoma de La Rioja.

      (1)  OJ C 191 of 10.8.2002.


title: Case T-643/14: Action brought on 1 September 2014  — Red Lemon Incorporation v OHIM — Lidl Stiftung (ABTRONIC)

text:
               27.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 380/19

         Action brought on 1 September 2014 — Red Lemon Incorporation v OHIM — Lidl Stiftung (ABTRONIC)
   (Case T-643/14)
   2014/C 380/25
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Red Lemon Incorporation (Hong Kong, People’s Republic of China) (represented by: T. Wieland and S. Müller, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany)

      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 15 May 2014 in Case R 1899/2013-1 and reject the opposition;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘ABTRONIC’ for goods in Class 9 — Community trade mark application No 8 1 84  632

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the international registration of the word mark ‘TRONIC’ for goods in Class 9

      Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

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


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 21 May 2001 in Case T-52/01 R: Jürgen Schaefer v the Commission of the European Communities (Applications for interim measures — Officials — Reassignment — Admissibility — Prima facie case — Urgency)

text:
C 259/12                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      15.9.2001
D. López Garido, lawyer, with an address for service in                   ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
Luxembourg against the Council of the European Union                                                    INSTANCE
(Agents: F. Anton and G. Ramos Ruano) and the European
Parliament (Agents: M. Gómez Leal and F. de Wachter) —                                              of 8 May 2001
application for annulment of the guide for candidates and the
notice of competition aimed at drawing up reserve lists for
Spanish-language adminstrators and Spanish-language assist-                in Case T-95/01 R: Gérard Coget and Others v Court of
ant administrators (EUR/A/159/2000 and PE/90/A — the                                  Auditors of the European Communities
Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of
A.W.H. Meij (President), A. Potocki and J. Pirrung, Judges;                (Applications for interim measures — Officials — Internal
H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 2 May 2001, the operative                              competition — Admissibility)
part of which is as follows:
                                                                                (2001/C 259/21)
1.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible;
2.    The parties shall bear their own costs, including costs relating                        (Language of the case: French)
      to proceedings on the application for interim measures.
                                                                           In Case T-95/01 R: Gérard Coget, an official of the Court of
                                                                           Auditors of the European Communities, Hettange-Grande,
(1) OJ C 316 of 4.11.00.                                                   France, Pierre Hugé, an official of the Court of Auditors of the
                                                                           European Communities, residing in Bonnevoie, Grand Duchy
                                                                           of Luxembourg, and Emmanuel Gabolde, an official of the
                                                                           Court of Auditors of the European Communities, residing in
                                                                           Metz, France, represented by André Soulier, lawyer, against
                                                                           Court of Auditors of the European Communities — application
                                                                           for suspension of operation of the decision of the Court of
                                                                           Auditors of 22 February 2001 filling, with effect from 1 July
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                               2001, the post of Secretary General — the President of the
                              INSTANCE                                     Court of First Instance made an order on 8 May 2001, the
                                                                           operative part of which is as follows:
                          of 21 May 2001
                                                                           1.   The application for interim measures is dismissed as inadmis-
                                                                                sible.
in Case T-52/01 R: Jürgen Schaefer v the Commission of
                  the European Communities                                 2.   The costs are reserved.
(Applications for interim measures — Officials — Reassign-
    ment — Admissibility — Prima facie case — Urgency)
                          (2001/C 259/20)
                                                                           Action brought on 12 June 2001 by Jörg Riedemann,
                                                                           Rechtsanwalt, as liquidator of ZEMAG GmbH, against the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                                (Case T-133/01)
In Case T-52/01 R: Jürgen Schaefer, an official of the Com-
mission of the European Communities, represented by
                                                                                (2001/C 259/22)
J. R. Iturriagagoitia, lawyer, against Commission of the Euro-
pean Communities (Agents: J. Currall and E. Gippini-Fournier)
— application for first, suspension of operation of the decision
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
of the Commission of 12 February 2001 transferring the
applicant to Brussels and, secondly, suspension of any pro-
cedure initiated with a view to filling the vacancy arising from           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
the order transferring the applicant — the President of the                ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Court of First Instance made an order on 21 May 2001, the                  European Communities on 12 June 2001 by Jörg Riedemann,
operative part of which is as follows:                                     Rechtsanwalt, as liquidator of ZEMAG GmbH, Zeitz, Germany,
                                                                           represented by Ulrich Vahlhaus, Rechtsanwalt.
1.    The application for interim measures is dismissed.
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should annul Commission
2.    The costs are reserved.
                                                                           decision K(2201)1028 of 28 March 2001 on state aid granted
                                                                           by Germany to EFBE Verwaltungs GmbH & Co Management
                                                                           KG (now Lintra Beteiligungs Holdings GmbH, together with


8.3.2003               EN                   Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 55/21
        Removal from the register of Case C-347/01 ( 1)                     Removal from the register of Case C-390/01 ( 1)
                         (2003/C 55/52)                                                      (2003/C 55/55)
By order of 28 November 2002 the President of the Court of          By order of 12 December 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal             Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-347/01: Commission of the               from the register of Case C-390/01: Commission of the
European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.                 European Communities v Portuguese Republic.
( 1) OJ C 331 of 24.11.2001.                                        (1 ) OJ C 348 of 8.12.2001.
        Removal from the register of Case C-377/01 ( 1)                     Removal from the register of Case C-21/02 (1)
                         (2003/C 55/53)                                                      (2003/C 55/56)
                                                                    By order of 13 December 2002 the President of the Court of
By order of 11 December 2002 the President of the Court of
                                                                    Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                    from the register of Case C-21/02: Commission of the
from the register of Case C-377/01: Commission of the
                                                                    European Communities v Italian Republic.
European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.
                                                                    (1 ) OJ C 68 of 16.03.2002.
( 1) OJ C 317 of 10.11.2001.
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-88/02 (1)
        Removal from the register of Case C-389/01 ( 1)
                                                                                (2003/C 55/57)
                         (2003/C 55/54)
                                                                    By order of 15 November 2002 the President of the Court of
By order of 12 December 2002 the President of the Court of          Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal             from the register of Case C-88/02 (Reference for a preliminary
from the register of Case C-389/01: Commission of the               ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Dolomite italiana SpA (SDI)
European Communities v Portuguese Republic.                         v Ministero delle Finanze.
( 1) OJ C 348 of 8.12.2001.                                         (1 ) OJ C 131 of 01.06.2002.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Fifth Chamber of the Tribunal de Première Instance, Liège, by judgment of that court of 24 February 1997 in the case of Société Financière d'Investissements SPRL (SFI) against the Belgian State (Case C-85/97)

text:
26 . 4 . 97            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 131 /7
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte d'Appello               — Does a system under which VAT on a benefit in kind
di Torino — Sezione I Civile — by order of that court of                     granted to an employee of an undertaking is calculated
31 January 1997 in the case of Amministrazione delle                         on a VAT inclusive basis when Belgian VAT is paid by
Finanze dello Stato against Grafoplast Italiana SpA in its                   the employer and on a VAT exclusive basis when VAT
own right and as the successor to Grafoplast Italiana SRL                    of another Member State is paid offend against
                           and Trasp. SRL                                    Article 95 of the Treaty of Rome and the principle of
                           (Case C-84/97)                                    'fiscal neutrality' laid down by the sixth VAT
                                                                             Directive ?
                            ( 97/C 131 /15 )
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  (') OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p . 1 .
European Communities by order of the Corte d'Appello di
Torino, Sezione I Civile ( First Civil Division of the Court
of Appeal, Turin ) of 31 January 1997, which was received
at the Court Registry on 25 February 1997, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Amministrazione delle Fi
nanze dello Stato against Grafoplast Italiana SpA in its
own right and as the successor to Grafoplast Italiana SRL               Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof
and Trasp. SRL on the following question:                               by order of that court of 26 November 1996 in the case of
                                                                        Reiner Woltmann trading as Firma Trans-Ex-Import
'Does there exist a principle of law which precludes a                                   against Hauptzollamt Potsdam
Member State which has failed to fulfil its obligations by                                          Case C-86/97 )
failing to adapt domestic law to Community law from
restricting the right of an individual to initiate proceedings                                       97/C 131 / 17
based directly on Community law and relating to the
period prior to such adaptation, and if so to determine in
the light of that principle the compatibility with                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Community law of Article 13 ( 2 ) of Decree No 641 of                   European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof
26 October 1972, which makes subject to a time limit of                 ( Federal Finance Court) of 26 November 1996, received at
three years an action for recovery of the sum unduly paid               the Court Registry on 27 February 1997, for a preliminary
in the period prior to the entry into force of the 1993                 ruling in the case of Reiner Woltmann trading as Firma
adaptation of domestic law to the Community Directive                   Trans-Ex-Import against Hauptzollamt Potsdam ( Principal
by Grafoplast to the Italian State pursuant to provisions               Customs Office Potsdam ) on the following questions :
which infringe Article 10 of Council Directive 69/335/
EEC (')?'
                                                                        1 . Is Article 905 ( 1 ) of Commission Regulation ( EEC )
(!) OJ No L 249 , 3 . 10 . 1969, p. 25 .                                     No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for
                                                                             the implementation of Council Regulation ( EEC )
                                                                             No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs
                                                                             Code (') to be interpreted as meaning that the
                                                                             decision-making customs authority is not to accept
                                                                             that there is a 'special situation resulting from
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Fifth Chamber
                                                                             circumstances in which no deception or obvious
of the Tribunal de Premiere Instance, Liege, by judgment
                                                                             negligence may be attributed to the person concerned'
of that court of 24 February 1997 in the case of Societe
                                                                             if on the theft of goods from a customs warehouse
Financiere d'Investissements SPRL ( SFI) against the
                                                                             ( non-Community            goods )    the conditions   in
                              Belgian State
                                                                             Article 900 ( 1 ) ( a ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 2454/93
                           ( Case C-85/97 )                                  for remission of customs duty to the owner of the
                             ( 97/C 131 / 16                                 warehouse are not met ?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Fifth Chamber                   2 . If question 1 is answered in the affirmative :
of the Tribunal de Premiere Instance ( Court of First
Instance ), Liege, of 24 February 1997, received at the
Court Registry on 27 February 1997, for a preliminary                        does the same apply in a case of hardship where theft
ruling in the case of Societe Financiere d'Investissements                   was not an insurable risk and the levying of customs
SPRL ( SFI ) against the Belgian State on the following                      duty would destroy the warehouse owners business, or
questions :
                                                                             may it be found on such facts that there is a 'special
                                                                              situation' within the meaning of Article 905 ( 1 ) of
— is the position taken by the VAT authorities, that the                      Regulation ( EEC ) No' 2454/93 which should be
     limitation period for the collection of tax runs from                    referred to the Commission for decision ?
     the 20th of the month following the quarter in which
     registration for VAT took place, as regards taxable                 (') OJ L 253 , 11 . 10 . 1993 , p . 1 .
     transactions carried out before that registration,
     compatible with Articles 4 and 10 of the sixth VAT
     Directive ( ] )?


title: Case C-426/10 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 September 2011 — Bell & Ross BV v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Klockgrossisten i Norden AB (Appeal — Signed original application lodged out of time — Regularisable defect)

text:
               12.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/6

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 September 2011 — Bell & Ross BV v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Klockgrossisten i Norden AB
   (Case C-426/10 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Signed original application lodged out of time - Regularisable defect)
   2011/C 331/08
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Bell & Ross BV (represented by: S. Guerlain, avocat)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent), Klockgrossisten i Norden AB

      Re:

   Appeal against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 18 June 2010 in Case T-51/10 Bell & Ross v OHIM — Klockgrossisten i Norden, whereby the General Court dismissed the action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 October 2009 (Case R 1267/2008-3) in invalidity proceedings between Klockgrossisten i Norden AB and Bell & Ross BV — Signed original application lodged out of time — Concepts of ‘excusable error’ and ‘unforeseeable circumstances’ — Principles of legitimate expectations and proportionality — Manifest inadmissibility

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Bell & Ross BV to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 346, 18.12.2010.


title: Action brought on 5 December 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain (Case C-414/97)

text:
C 41/12                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       7.2.98
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            Action brought on 4 December 1997 by the Commission
                                                                             of the European Communities against the Federal
                                                                                Republic of Germany
1. declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations                                     (Case C-413/97)
     or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992                                              (98/C 41/24)
     on the introduction of measures to encourage
     improvements in the safety and health at work of
     pregnant workers and workers who have recently                    An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
     given birth or are breastfeeding (1), the Grand Duchy             brought before the Court of Justice of the European
     of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations                Communities on 4 December 1997 by the Commission of
     under that Directive;                                             the European Communities, represented by Michel Nolin,
                                                                       of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for
                                                                       service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
                                                                       Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
2. order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the
     costs.
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    1. declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                                                                            or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                            Council Directive 93/7/EEC of 15 March 1993 on the
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous with                      return of cultural objects unlawfully removed from the
those relied upon in Case C-406/97 (2), the time-limit for                  territory of a Member State (1), or by failing to inform
transposition expired on 19 October 1994.                                   the Commission thereof, the Federal Republic of
                                                                            Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                            Article 18 of that Directive;
(1) OJ L 348, 28.11.1992, p. 1.
(2) See page 11 of this Official Journal.
                                                                       2. order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the
                                                                            costs.
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura                      The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third
Circondariale di Bologna by order of that court of                     paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty requires
29 November 1997 in the case of E.D. Srl against Italo                 Member States to adopt the measures necessary to
                            Fenocchio                                  transpose directives addressed to them into their domestic
                                                                       law before the expiry of the period prescribed for doing
                        (Case C-412/97)                                so. In the present case, that period expired on
                                                                       15 December 1993 without the Grand Duchy of
                          (98/C 41/23)
                                                                       Luxembourg having brought into force the necessary
                                                                       provisions (2).
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 (1) OJ L 74, 27.3.1993, p. 74.
European Communities by order of the Pretura                           (2) See page 11 of this Official Journal.
Circondariale       (Magistrates       Court),   Bologna,     of
29 November 1997, received at the Court Registry on
5 December 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
E.D. Srl against Italo Fenocchio on the following question:
                                                                       Action brought on 5 December 1997 by the Commission
Must the prohibition of issuing an ingiunzione (summary                of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
order) where the same is to be served outside the Republic                                            Spain
or territories subject to Italian sovereignty Ð that
prohibition being laid down by the last paragraph of                                           (Case C-414/97)
Article 633 of the Code of Civil Procedure Ð be regarded                                         (98/C 41/25)
as a restriction or equivalent measure capable of
hindering, directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, the
free movement of goods, services and capital guaranteed                An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought
by Articles 34, 59 and 73b of the Treaty of Rome?                      before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                       on 15 December 1997 by the Commission of the
                                                                       European Communities, represented by Miguel Díaz-
                                                                       Llanos La Roche, Legal Adviser, and Carlos Gómez de la
 ---pagebreak--- 7.2.98               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 41/13
Cruz, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an              1993. As from that date the Kingdom of Spain has been
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos          authorized to grant that exemption, even though only in
Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                        respect of the transactions referred to in points 23 and 25
                                                                   of Annex F of Directive 77/388/EEC.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                        (1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.
1. declare that, by considering intra-Community
    acquisitions and imports of arms, ammunition and
    equipment for exclusively military use, other than the
    aircraft and warships mentioned in points 23 and 25
    of Annex F to Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977,
                                                                   Action brought on 9 December 1997 by the Commission
    to be exempt from value added tax (VAT) (1),
                                                                    of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
    notwithstanding the provisions of Articles 2(2), 28a,
    14 and 28c(B) of Directive 77/388/EEC, the Kingdom                                       (Case C-415/97)
    of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
    Treaty establishing the European Community;                                                (98/C 41/26)
2. order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.                    An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
                                                                   the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                   9 December 1997 by the Commission of the European
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                Communities, represented by Paolo Stancanelli, of its
                                                                   Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service
                                                                   in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
                                                                   of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Article 2(2) and Article 28a of Directive 77/388/EEC
provide, in a general manner, that all imports and intra-
Community acquisitions of goods are to be subject to
VAT. Articles 14 and 28c establish a common list of the            The applicant claims that the Court should:
exemptions which the Member State must Ð or may Ð
grant, with a view to collecting the Communities' own
resources in a uniform manner in all the Member States.            Ð declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
Among those exemptions, exhaustively listed in Articles 14              or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
and 28c, there is none which refers to arms, ammunition                 Council Directive 93/7/EEC of 15 March 1993 on the
and equipment for exclusively military use, similar to the              return of cultural objects unlawfully removed from the
exemption granted by Spanish Law No 6/87.                               territory of a Member State (1), or by failing to inform
Article 28(3)(b), invoked by the Kingdom of Spain, refers               the Commission thereof, the Italian Republic has
to the Member States which on the date on which the                     failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive;
Directive entered into force treated as exempt from VAT
certain transactions, and authorizes them to continue
doing so as a transitional measure. Since no period of time
was granted to the Kingdom of Spain by Annex XXXVI                 Ð order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
or other provisions of the Act concerning the Conditions
of Accession of the Kingdom of Spain to the European
Community, it introduced VAT by Law No 30/85 which
began to have full effect from 1 January 1986. It was not          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
until more than a year later that it was decided to exempt
imports and intra-Community acquisitions of military
equipment, with retrospective effect as from the date on           Under Article 189 of the EC Treaty, according to which a
which VAT began to be charged in Spain.                            directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved,
                                                                   upon each Member State to which it is addressed,
                                                                   Member States are required to observe the time-limits laid
It is true that the transitional period referred to in             down. That period expired on 15 December 1993 without
Article 28 of Directive 77/388/EEC was initially fixed to          the Italian Republic having brought into force the
last for five years as from 1 January 1978. It is also true        necessary provisions.
that, as the Member States in Council reached no
decision, that transitional period has been extended to
                                                                   (1) OJ L 74, 27.3.1993, p. 74.
date and that, in consequence, Member States which then
treated the transactions listed in Annex F as exempt may
continue to do so. However, that was, beyond a doubt,
not the case of the Kingdom of Spain until 1 January