title: Case C-401/00: Action brought on 3 November 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
C 355/18                 EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      9.12.2000
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         —     Declare that, by failing to adopt plans for managing
—     Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force                   waste, including hazardous waste and packaging waste,
      within the prescribed period the laws, regulations or                    or, in the alternative, by failing to communicate any
      administrative provisions necessary to comply with Com-                  such plans to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of
      mission Directive 97/8/EC amending Council Directive                     Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      74/63/EEC of 17 December 1973 on the fixing of                           Articles 7, 6 and 14 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC on
      maximum permitted levels for undesirable substances                      waste (1), as amended by Directives 91/156/EEC (2), and
      and products in feedingstuffs (1), the French Republic has               Council Directive 91/689/EEC (3) on hazardous waste,
      failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of Directive            and European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC
      97/8/EC.                                                                 of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging
                                                                               waste (4); and
—     Order the French Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                         —     Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         Under Article 249 of the EC Treaty, according to which a
Under Article 249 of the EC Treaty, according to which a                 directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon        each Member State to which it is addressed, Member States are
each Member State to which it is addressed, Member States are            required to observe the time-limits laid down in directives for
required to observe the time-limits laid down in directives for          their transposition. That time-limit expired without the Grand
their transposition. That time-limit expired on 30 June 1998             Duchy of Luxembourg having brought into force the necessary
without the French Republic having brought into force the                provisions in order to comply with the directive referred to in
necessary provisions in order to comply with the directive               the Commission’s application.
referred to in the Commission’s application.
                                                                         ( 1) OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39.
                                                                         ( 2) OJ 1991 L 778, p. 32.
                                                                         ( 3) OJ 1991 L 377, p. 20.
(1) OJ 1997 L 48, p. 30.                                                 ( 4) OJ 1994 L 365, p. 10.
Action brought on 3 November 2000 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy                              Removal from the register of Case C-271/98 (1)
                           of Luxembourg
                                                                                (2000/C 355/37)
                           (Case C-401/00)
                                                                         By order of 12 July 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                         of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                           (2000/C 355/36)                               the register of Case C-271/98 (reference for a preliminary
                                                                         ruling from Juzgado de Primera Instancia (Court of First
                                                                         Instance) No 35 Barcelona): Salvat Editores SA v José Antonio
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was                      Serrano Garrido.
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 3 November 2000 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Roland Tricot, of its Legal                  (1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.
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


title: Case T-159/04: Action brought on 24 April 2004 by Davide Rovetta against Commission of the European Communities

text:
               10.7.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/13

         Action brought on 24 April 2004 by Davide Rovetta against Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-159/04)
   (2004/C 179/25)
   Language of the case: Italian
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 24 April 2004 by Davide Rovetta, represented by Maurizio Gambardella, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the definitive decision classifying the applicant in Grade B 5/3 of 14 May 2003 and rejecting the applicant's request No D/77/03 that he be classified in Grade B 4;

               —

               annul the decision, contained in the reply to complaint No R/563/03, refusing him access to the documents of the joint classification committee;

               —

               award damages in the nominal amount of EUR 1 for non-material damage suffered by the applicant as a result of the contested decision;

               —

               order the Commission to pay to the applicant with retrospective effect dating from his taking up of duties as if he had been classified in Grade B 4 in terms to be determined by the appointing authority;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Davide Rovetta, an official in Directorate General for taxation and customs union, upon completing his period of probation, applied to the appointing authority, in accordance with Article 31 of the Staff Regulations, to be classified in the higher grade in his category, that is B 4. In his request he pointed out that he had been engaged in order to carry out additional duties as a lawyer in Directorate General for taxation and customs union, Unit A3 ‘Legal affairs and enforcement of Community provisions’.
   On receiving a reply in the negative from the appointing authority and being appointed to Grade B 5/3, he brought a complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations against that decision, which was expressly rejected.
   The applicant now seeks before the Court of First Instance the annulment of that decision on the complaint and of the preceding decision regarding grading as well as of the refusal to grant the access requested by him to the documents of the joint grading committee.
   In the view of the applicant, those decisions were vitiated by an infringement of Articles 25 and 31 of the Staff Regulations, breach of the case-law of the Court of Justice and of the Court of First Instance on the matter and by a breach of essential procedural requirements, inadequate statement of reasons and manifest error of assessment. The applicant points out, moreover, in that connection, that the basic decision on grading of 1983, as amended by the decision of 7 February 1996, was misapplied.
   Finally, the applicant alleges unlawfulness of the system of delegation of powers of the appointing authority by the College, in the context of grading, inasmuch as it is in breach of the principles of proportionality, transparency and sound administration.


title: Case T-335/15: Judgment of the General Court of 29 September 2016 — Universal Protein Supplements v EUIPO (Representation of a body builder) (EU trade mark — Application for registration of an EU figurative mark representing a body-builder — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               14.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 419/39

         Judgment of the General Court of 29 September 2016 — Universal Protein Supplements v EUIPO (Representation of a body builder)
   (Case T-335/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Application for registration of an EU figurative mark representing a body-builder - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 419/49)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Universal Protein Supplements Corp. (New Brunswick, New Jersey, United States) (represented by: S. Malynicz QC)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: initially by H. O’Neill, and subsequently by A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 March 2015 (Case R 2958/2014-5) concerning an application for registration of a figurative sign representing a body-builder as an EU trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Universal Protein Supplements Corp. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2015.


title: Case C-229/07: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 January 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Paris (France)) — Diana Mayeur v Ministère de la Santé et des Solidarités (Article 104/3 of the Rules of Procedure — Article 23 of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council — Freedom of establishment — Recognition of diplomas, qualifications and experience — Situation of a national of a non-Member State, the holder of a degree in medicine issued by that non-Member State and recognised by a Member State, wishing to obtain authorisation to practise her profession as a doctor in another Member State where she resides lawfully with her spouse, a national of the latter Member State)

text:
               12.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 92/10

         Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 January 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Paris (France)) — Diana Mayeur v Ministère de la Santé et des Solidarités
   (Case C-229/07) (1)

   (Article 104/3 of the Rules of Procedure - Article 23 of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council - Freedom of establishment - Recognition of diplomas, qualifications and experience - Situation of a national of a non-Member State, the holder of a degree in medicine issued by that non-Member State and recognised by a Member State, wishing to obtain authorisation to practise her profession as a doctor in another Member State where she resides lawfully with her spouse, a national of the latter Member State)
   (2008/C 92/17)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Tribunal administratif de Paris (France)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Diana Mayeur

      Defendant: Ministère de la Santé et des Solidarités
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal administratif de Paris (France) — Interpretation of Article 23 of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the rights of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77, and — Corrigenda — OJ 2004 L 229, p. 35, and OJ 2005 L 197, p. 34) — Mutual recognition of diplomas and freedom of establishment — Obligation to take account of all the diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications and of the relevant experience of the person concerned — Situation of a national of a non-Member State, the holder of a degree in medicine issued by that non-Member State and recognised by a Member State, wishing to obtain authorisation to practise her profession as a doctor in another Member State where she resides lawfully with her spouse, a Community national
   Operative part of the order
   Article 23 of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the rights of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC does not preclude a Member State from refusing to allow a national of a non-Member State, who is married to a Community national who has not exercised his right to freedom of movement, to rely on the Community rules relating to the mutual recognition of diplomas and to the freedom of establishment, and does not require the competent authorities of the Member State, from which authorisation to practise a regulated profession is sought, to take into consideration all the diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications, even if they were obtained outside the European Union but if, at least, they have been recognised in another Member State, and the relevant experience of the person concerned, by comparing the specialised knowledge and abilities certified by those diplomas and that experience with the knowledge and qualifications required by the national rules.

      (1)  OJ C 155, 7.7.2007.


title: Case C-297/12: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Laufen — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Gjoko Filev, Adnan Osmani (Area of freedom, security and justice — Return of illegally staying third-country nationals — Directive 2008/115/EC — Article 11(2) — Return decision coupled with an entry ban — Length of the entry ban restricted to five years in principle — National legislation providing for an entry ban of unlimited duration in the absence of an application for a limitation — Article 2(2)(b) — Third-country nationals subject to return as a criminal law sanction or as a consequence of a criminal law sanction — Non-application of the directive)

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/31

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Laufen — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Gjoko Filev, Adnan Osmani
   (Case C-297/12) (1)

   (Area of freedom, security and justice - Return of illegally staying third-country nationals - Directive 2008/115/EC - Article 11(2) - Return decision coupled with an entry ban - Length of the entry ban restricted to five years in principle - National legislation providing for an entry ban of unlimited duration in the absence of an application for a limitation - Article 2(2)(b) - Third-country nationals subject to return as a criminal law sanction or as a consequence of a criminal law sanction - Non-application of the directive)
   2013/C 344/53
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Laufen

      Parties to the criminal proceedings

   Gjoko Filev, Adnan Osmani

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Amtsgericht Laufen — Interpretation of Articles 2(2)(b) and 11(2) of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98) — Prohibition on entry into national territory, linked to a return decision — Maximum duration of that entry ban — National law which provides for a prohibition on entry into national territory of an unlimited duration for foreigners who were the subject of an expulsion order and which makes the infringement of that entry ban subject to a fine or sentence of up to three years imprisonment — Late transposition of the directive — Direct effect of its provisions — Possibility, under national law, to apply for the effects of the entry ban to be limited in time — Length of the entry ban restricted, in that case, to five years, subject to the absence of a criminal conviction or any threat to public order and public security — Third-country nationals who were the subject of an expulsion order made more than five years previously

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 11(2) of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals must be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law, such as Article 11(1) of the Law on the residence, gainful employment and integration of foreign nationals on Federal territory (Gesetz über den Aufenthalt, die Erwerbstätigkeit und die Integration von Ausländern im Bundesgebiet), which makes the limitation of the length of an entry ban subject to the making by the third-country national concerned of an application seeking to obtain the benefit of such a limit.

               2.

               Article 11(2) of Directive 2008/115 must be interpreted as precluding breach of an entry and residence ban in the territory of a Member State, which was handed down more than five years before the date either of the re-entry into that territory of the third-country national concerned or of the entry into force of the national legislation implementing that directive, from giving rise to a criminal sanction, unless that national constitutes a serious threat to public order, public security or national security.

               3.

               Directive 2008/115 must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from providing that an expulsion or removal order which predates by five years or more the period between the date on which that directive should have been implemented and the date on which it was implemented, may subsequently be used as a basis for criminal proceedings, where that order was based on a criminal law sanction within the meaning of Article 2(2)(b) of that directive and where that Member State exercised the discretion provided for under that provision.

      (1)  OJ C 250, 18.8.2012.


title: Case T-471/17: Action brought on 28 July 2017 — Edison v EUIPO (EDISON)

text:
               18.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 309/39

         Action brought on 28 July 2017 — Edison v EUIPO (EDISON)
   (Case T-471/17)
   (2017/C 309/52)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Edison SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: F. Boscariol de Roberto, D. Martucci and I. Gatto, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word element ‘EDISON’ — Application for registration No 3 315 991

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 April 2017 in Case R 1355/2016-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Incorrect exclusion from Class 4 of the Eighth Edition of the Nice Classification of ‘Electricity’ on the ground that it does not fall under the category of ‘fuel (including motor spirits)’, ‘motor fuels’ and ‘illuminants’.


title: Case C-267/09: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 5 May 2011 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Free movement of capital — Articles 56 EC and 40 of the EEA Agreement — Restrictions — Direct taxation — Non-resident taxpayers — Obligation to appoint a tax representative)

text:
               25.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 186/2

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 5 May 2011 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-267/09) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Free movement of capital - Articles 56 EC and 40 of the EEA Agreement - Restrictions - Direct taxation - Non-resident taxpayers - Obligation to appoint a tax representative)
   2011/C 186/03
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and G. Braga da Cruz, Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, Agent)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Muñoz Pérez, Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 18 EC and 56 EC — Obligation on non-resident taxpayers to appoint a tax representative

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that by adopting and maintaining in force Article 130 of the Personal Income Tax Code (Código do Imposto sobre o Rendimento das Pessoas Singulares), which requires non-residents to appoint a tax representative in Portugal if they are in receipt of income requiring the submission of a tax return, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56 EC;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay three-quarters of the costs. Orders the Commission to pay the remaining quarter;

               4.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 220, 12.9.2009.


title: Case F-102/10: Action brought on 18 October 2010 — Geradon v Council

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/64

         Action brought on 18 October 2010 — Geradon v Council
   (Case F-102/10)
   ()
   2011/C 30/125
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Félix Geradon (Sint Pieters Leeuw, Belgium) (represented by: A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the applicant’s salary adjustment slip for the period from July to December 2009 and the salary slips issued since 1 January 2010 within the framework of the annual adjustment of the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants pursuant to Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1296/2009 of 23 December 2009.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Council’s decision of 5 July 2010 rejecting the applicant’s complaint regarding the salary adjustment slip for the period from July to December 2009 and his salary slips issued since 1 January 2010;

               —

               Annul, where necessary, the Council’s decisions on the issue of salary adjustment slips for the period from July to December 2009 and of salary slips since 1 January 2010;

               —

               Order the Council to pay the applicant arrears of remuneration plus default interest;

               —

               Order the Council to pay the costs.


title: Case T-189/15: Order of the General Court of 15 January 2016 — TMG Landelijke Media and Willems v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Correspondence between the Dutch authorities and the Commission concerning the annual adjustment of the Netherlands’ contribution to the EU budget, made on the basis of gross national income — Partial refusal of access — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               14.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/44

         Order of the General Court of 15 January 2016 — TMG Landelijke Media and Willems v Commission
   (Case T-189/15) (1)

   ((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Correspondence between the Dutch authorities and the Commission concerning the annual adjustment of the Netherlands’ contribution to the EU budget, made on the basis of gross national income - Partial refusal of access - No need to adjudicate))
   (2016/C 098/58)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicants: TMG Landelijke Media BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) and Menzo Willems (Voorburg, Netherlands) (represented by: R.S. Le Poole and L. Broers, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 17 February 2015 refusing, in part, to grant Mr Willems access to the documents relating to correspondence between the Commission and the Dutch authorities concerning the annual adjustment of the Netherlands’ contribution to the European Union budget.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

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

               2.

               The European Commission shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by TMG Landelijke Media BV and Mr Menzo Willems.

      (1)  OJ C 190, 8.6.2015.


title: Case T-110/10: Action brought on 8 March 2010 — Insula v Commission

text:
               22.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/40

         Action brought on 8 March 2010 — Insula v Commission
   (Case T-110/10)
   2010/C 134/68
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Conseil scientifique international pour le développement des îles (Insula) (Paris, France) (represented by: J.-D. Simonet and P. Marsal, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the action to be admissible and well-founded;

               —

               Declare that the Commission's demand for repayment of a sum of EUR 84 120 is unfounded and, therefore, order the Commission to issue a credit note in the sum of EUR 84 120;

               —

               Order that the action be joined to Case T-366/09, on account of the connection between them, for the purposes of the written and oral procedure;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the present action, based on an arbitration clause, the applicant requests the Court to declare that the debit note of 28 January 2010 by which the Commission, following an audit report from OLAF, demanded recovery of the advances paid to the applicant, does not comply with the terms of the EL HIERRO (NNE5/2001/950) contract concluded within the framework of a specific program for research, technological development and demonstration on energy, the environment and sustainable development.
   The applicant puts forwards two pleas in law.
   By the first plea in law, it challenges the enforceability of the debt claimed by the Commission following the audit carried out in 2005.
   By the second plea in law, it claims that the Commission, by issuing the new debit note, is in breach of its contractual obligations which no longer entitle it to demand, six years after the last payment to Insula and without notification on its part in the period laid down by the contract, additional supporting documentary evidence.


title: Case C-263/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 16 June 2006 — Carboni e Derivati s.r.l. v Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze, Riunione Adriatica di Sicurtà s.p.a.

text:
               16.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/19

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 16 June 2006 — Carboni e Derivati s.r.l. v Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze, Riunione Adriatica di Sicurtà s.p.a.
   (Case C-263/06)
   (2006/C 224/36)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Corte Suprema di Cassazione
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Carboni e Derivati s.r.l.

      Respondents: Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze, Riunione Adriatica di Sicurtà s.p.a.
   Question referred
   According to the principles of Community customs law and for the purposes of application of an anti-dumping duty such as that laid down by Commission Decision No 67/94/ECSC (1), may the customs authority refer to the price indicated in a sale of the same goods which took place prior to that on the basis of which the customs declaration was made, where the buyer is a Community subject or, in any case, the sale took place for import into the Community?

      (1)  OJ 1994 L 32, p. 44.


title: Case C-14/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 15 January 2014 — X; Other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

text:
               28.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/9

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 15 January 2014 — X; Other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-14/14)
   2014/C 129/12
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant in cassation: X

      Other party to the appeal in cassation: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the application of Article 63 TFEU require that the comparison of a non-resident with a resident in a case such as the present, in which dividend tax is withheld on a dividend payment by the source State, be extended to the income tax payable on the dividend income, against which, in the case of residents, the dividend tax is set off?

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, in the assessment as to whether the effective tax burden for a non-resident is heavier than the tax burden for a resident, should a comparison be made between the Netherlands dividend tax withheld in respect of the non-resident and the Netherlands income tax payable by a resident, calculated in respect of the flat-rate income which, in the year in which the dividends were received, is attributable to the total holding of investment shares in Netherlands companies, or does European Union law require that a different standard of comparison be taken into account? Must the tax-free capital allowance which applies to residents also be taken into account when making that comparison, and, if so, to what extent (see the judgment of the Court of Justice of 17 October 2013 in Case C-181/12 Welte, V-N 2013/51.20.1)?

               3.

               If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative, is it sufficient, in the assessment as to whether a potentially discriminatory withholding tax levied at source is effectively neutralised on the basis of a convention for the avoidance of double taxation concluded by the source State, that (i) the double taxation convention concerned makes provision for a tax reduction in the State of residence by means of the setting-off of the withholding tax levied at source and that, although that option is not unconditional, (ii) in the case in question the tax reduction granted by the State of residence, by levying tax only on the net dividend received, offsets in full the discriminatory portion of the withholding tax levied at source?


title: Case C-477/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 5 September 2013 — Hans Angerer v Eintragungsausschuss bei der Bayerischen Architektenkammer

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/46

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 5 September 2013 — Hans Angerer v Eintragungsausschuss bei der Bayerischen Architektenkammer
   (Case C-477/13)
   2013/C 344/79
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesverwaltungsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Hans Angerer

      Respondent: Eintragungsausschuss bei der Bayerischen Architektenkammer

      Questions referred

               1.

                           (a)

                           Are ‘specific and exceptional reasons’ within the meaning of Article 10 of the Directive (1) the circumstances defined in the categories that follow (numbered (a) to (g)), or must in addition to these circumstances ‘specific and exceptional reasons’ be given, for which the applicant does not satisfy the conditions laid down in Chapters II and III of Title III of the Directive?

                           (b)

                           In the latter case, of what sort must the ‘specific and exceptional reasons’ be? Must they be personal reasons — such as reasons relating to the individual’s curriculum vitae ‒ for which the migrant does not, by way of exception, satisfy the conditions for automatic recognition of his training under Chapter III of Title III of the Directive?

               2.

                           (a)

                           Does the concept of architect within the meaning of Article 10(c) of the Directive require that the migrant in the Member State of origin, beyond carrying out the technical activities of construction planning, construction supervision and actual construction, has also or could also have, after his training, carried out creative, urban planning, economic and possibly historic building conservation activities, and if so to what extent?

                           (b)

                           Does the concept of architect within the meaning of Article 10(c) of the Directive require the migrant to have a university-level education, of which the principal component is architecture, meaning that it goes beyond technical matters of construction planning, construction supervision and actual construction, and also covers creative, urban planning, economic and possibly historic building conservation matters, and if so to what extent?

                           (c)

                                       (i)

                                       Do the answers to a) and b) depend on how the professional title of ‘architect’ is normally used in other Member States (Article 48(1) of the Directive);

                                       (ii)

                                       or is it sufficient to establish how the professional title of ‘architect’ is normally used in the Member State of origin and in the host Member State;

                                       (iii)

                                       or can the spectrum of activities normally associated with the professional title of ‘architect’ in the territory of European Union be derived from Article 46(1) paragraph 2 of the Directive?

      (1)  Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22).


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 31 October 2000 in Case T-85/00 R: Laboratórios Roussel, Limitada, and Laboratoires Roussel Diamant S.a.r.l. v Commission of the European Communities (Interlocutory proceedings — Withdrawal of marketing authorisation for medicinal products for human use containing fenproporex — Directive 75/319/EEC — Urgency — Need to balance interests)

text:
21.4.2001              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 118/39
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                                    ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                            INSTANCE
                                                                                of 17 November 2000
                       of 31 October 2000
                                                                         in Case T-115/00: Christiane Chvatal v Court of Justice of
                                                                                the European Communities (1)
in Case T-85/00 R: Laboratórios Roussel, Limitada, and
Laboratoires Roussel Diamant S.a.r.l. v Commission of
                  the European Communities
                                                                         (Action for annulment and damages — Refusal to comply
                                                                         with a judgment — Annulment of the judgment — Case not
                                                                                proceeding to judgment)
(Interlocutory proceedings — Withdrawal of marketing
authorisation for medicinal products for human use contain-
ing fenproporex — Directive 75/319/EEC — Urgency —
                                                                                (2001/C 118/108)
                    Need to balance interests)
                         (2001/C 118/107)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         In Case T-115/00: Christiane Chvatal, an official of the Court
                                                                         of Justice of the European Communities, residing at Itzig
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                         (Luxembourg), represented by Alain Lorang, of the Luxem-
                                                                         bourg Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                         latter’s Chambers, 2 Rue des Dahlias, v Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities (Agent: M. Schauss) — application,
In Case T-85/00 R: Laboratórios Roussel, Lda, of Mem                    first, for annulment of the decision of the Court of Justice
Martins (Portugal), and Laboratoires Roussel Diamant S.a.r.l.,           rejecting the applicant’s request that the institution make
of Puteaux (France), represented by B. Sträter, Rechtsanwalt,            representations to the Council asking it to adopt, upon
Bonn, Germany, with an address for service in Luxembourg at              the accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden, measures to
the Chambers of Bonn and Schmidt, 7 Val Sainte-Croix,                    terminate the service of officials of the Court of Justice in
against Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                  accordance with the proposal submitted to it, alternatively to
H. Støvlbæk and B. Wägenbaur) — application for the                      adopt any other appropriate rules to ensure compliance with
suspension of application of the decision of the Commission              the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance on
of 9 March 2000 concerning the withdrawal of authorisations              30 September 1998 in Case T-154/96 and to include the
for placing on the market medicinal products for human                   applicant’s name in the list of persons having expressed an
consumption containing, in particular, fenproporex — the                 interest in being the subject of a decision terminating their
President of the Court of First Instance made an order on                service, and, second, for damages — the Court of First
31 October 2000, the operative part of which is as follows:              Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: J. Azizi, President,
                                                                         and M. Jaeger and M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made
                                                                         an order on 17 November 2000, the operative part of which
1.   The application to the applicants of the decision of the            is as follows:
     Commission of 9 March 2000 concerning the withdrawal of
     authorisations for placing on the market medicinal products
     for human consumption containing clobenzorex, fenbutrazat,          1.     There is no need to give a decision on the present application.
     fenproporex, mazindol, mefenorex, norpseudoephedrine, phen-
     metrazine, phendimetrazine and propylhexedrine (C(2000)
     608) is suspended.                                                  2.     The parties are to bear their own costs.
2.   Costs are reserved.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 211 of 22.7.2000.


title: Case T-208/10: Action brought on 6 May 2010 — Cree v OHIM (TRUEWHITE)

text:
               3.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/53

         Action brought on 6 May 2010 — Cree v OHIM (TRUEWHITE)
   (Case T-208/10)
   2010/C 179/91
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Cree Inc (Durham, USA) (represented by V. Schiller, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 February 2010 in Case R 985/2009-2;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘TRUEWHITE’ for goods in Classes 9 and 11.

      Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 4, Article 7(1)(b) and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (1) because the trade mark concerned is distinctive.
   Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (2) because the trade mark concerned is not descriptive.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).


title: Case C-355/04 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 27 February 2007 — Segi, Araitz Zubimendi Izaga, Aritza Galagara v Council of the European Union, Kingdom of Spain, Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Appeal — European Union — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Common Positions 2001/931/CFSP, 2002/340/CFSP and 2002/462/CFSP — Measures concerning persons, groups and entities involved in terrorist acts — Jurisdiction of the Court of Justice)

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/4

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 27 February 2007 — Segi, Araitz Zubimendi Izaga, Aritza Galagara v Council of the European Union, Kingdom of Spain, Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-355/04 P) (1)

   (Appeal - European Union - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Common Positions 2001/931/CFSP, 2002/340/CFSP and 2002/462/CFSP - Measures concerning persons, groups and entities involved in terrorist acts - Jurisdiction of the Court of Justice)
   (2007/C 95/06)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellants: Segi, Araitz Zubimendi Izaga, Aritza Galagara (represented by: D. Rouget, avocat)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: E. Finnegan and M. Bauer, Agents) Kingdom of Spain, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
   Re:
   Appeal brought against the order of the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of 7 June 2004, in case T-338/02 SEGI and Others v Council of the European Union [2004] ECR U-1647, dismissing the applicant's action seeking damages in respect of the loss allegedly suffered by the applicants as a result of the inclusion of SEGI in the list drawn up under the legislation on the fight against terrorism.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal.

               2.

               Orders Segi, Ms Zubimendi Izaga and Mr Galarraga to pay the costs.

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 251, 9.10.2004.


title: Case C-95/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundessozialgericht by order of 15 October 1998 in the case of Mervett Khalil v. Bundesanstalt für Arbeit

text:
5.6.1999               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 160/7
     kind, either from the authority itself or from other              2. If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative:
     contracting authorities, which enable those bodies to
     tender in an award procedure at prices which are substan-              Does Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 also apply to stateless
     tially below those of their commercially active competitors,           workers and to members of their families who have
     infringe the principle of equal treatment of all tenderers             travelled directly to a Member State from a non-member
     and candidates in an award procedure?                                  country and have not moved within the Community?
II. Does the decision of a contracting authority to admit
     such bodies to an award procedure constitute covert               (1) OJ L 149, 5.7.1971, p. 2; OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II),
     discrimination, if the bodies which receive such subsidies            p. 416.
     without exception have the nationality of or are established
     in the Member State in which the contracting authority is
     also established?
III. Does the decision of a contracting authority to admit such
     bodies to an award procedure, even on the assumption
     that it does not discriminate against the other tenderers
     and candidates, constitute a restriction of the freedom to        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundessozial-
     provide services which is not compatible with the pro-            gericht by order of 15 October 1998 in the case of Issa
     visions of the EC Treaty, in particular Article 59 et seq.                      Chaaban v. Bundesanstalt für Arbeit
     thereof?
                                                                                (Case C-96/99)
IV. May the contracting authority conclude service contracts
     with bodies which are exclusively or at least predominantly                                (1999/C 160/16)
     in public ownership and provide their services exclusively
     or at least predominantly to the contracting authority or
     other State institutions, without making the service the          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     subject of an award procedure in competition with com-            European Communities by order of 15 October 1998 from
     mercially active tenderers in accordance with Directive           the Bundessozialgericht (Federal Social Court), which was
     92/50/EEC (1)?                                                    received at the Court Registry on 17 March 1999, for a
                                                                       preliminary ruling in the case of Issa Chaaban v. Bundesanstalt
                                                                       für Arbeit on the following questions:
(1) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, p. 1.
                                                                       1. Does Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) of 14 June
                                                                            1971 on the application of social security schemes to
                                                                            employed persons, to self-employed persons and to mem-
                                                                            bers of their families moving within the Community apply
                                                                            to stateless persons and to members of their families if
                                                                            such persons have no right of free movement under the
                                                                            Treaty of 25 March 1957 establishing the European
                                                                            Community, as amended by the Treaty of 7 February 1992
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundessozial-                     on the European Union?
gericht by order of 15 October 1998 in the case of
           Mervett Khalil v. Bundesanstalt für Arbeit                  2. If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative:
                                                                            Does Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 also apply if the
                          (Case C-95/99)
                                                                            stateless person, his spouse, who is a national of a
                                                                            non-member country, and the other members of their
                         (1999/C 160/15)                                    family have travelled directly to a Member State from a
                                                                            non-member country and have not moved within the
                                                                            Community?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 15 October 1998 from                  3. If the answer to question 2 is in the affirmative:
the Bundessozialgericht (Federal Social Court), which was
received at the Court Registry on 17 March 1999, for a                      Is a family benefit such as child benefit under the German
preliminary ruling in the case of Mervett Khalil v. Bundesanstalt           Bundeskindergeldgesetz to be granted even if only the
für Arbeit on the following questions:                                      spouse who is a national of a non-member country is an
                                                                            employed person, while the stateless other spouse, from
1. Does Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1)of 14 June                   whom the first spouse derives his right, is not herself an
     1971 on the application of social security schemes to                  employed person?
     employed persons, to self-employed persons and to mem-
     bers of their families moving within the Community apply
     to stateless persons and to members of their families if          (1) JO L 149, 5.7.1971, p. 2; OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II),
     such persons have no right of free movement under the                 p. 416.
     Treaty of 25 March 1957 establishing the European
     Community, as amended by the Treaty of 7 February 1992
     on the European Union?


title: Case C-366/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 14 June 2017 — Jörg Scharnweber and Henning Kuhlmann v Société Air France SA

text:
               25.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 318/5

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 14 June 2017 — Jörg Scharnweber and Henning Kuhlmann v Société Air France SA
   (Case C-366/17)
   (2017/C 318/07)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Hamburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Jörg Scharnweber and Henning Kuhlmann

      Defendant: Société Air France SA
   The case was removed from the Register of the Court of Justice by order of the Court of 19 July 2017.


title: Case F-130/06: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 8 July 2010 Sotgia v Commission (Staff cases — Officials — Appointment — Members of the temporary staff appointed as officials — Candidates’ names included on a reserve list before the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations — Grading pursuant to the new less favourable rules — Article 5(4) and Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations)

text:
               11.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/40

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 8 July 2010 Sotgia v Commission
   (Case F-130/06) (1)

   (Staff cases - Officials - Appointment - Members of the temporary staff appointed as officials - Candidates’ names included on a reserve list before the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations - Grading pursuant to the new less favourable rules - Article 5(4) and Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations)
   2010/C 246/69
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Stefano Sotgia (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: initially, T. Bontinck and J. Feld, lawyers, and subsequently T. Bontinck and S. Woog, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and H Krämer, agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision of the Appointing Authority which took effect on 16 April 2006 and by which the applicant, a member of temporary staff classified in grade A*11 who was successful in open competition EPSO/A/18/04, was appointed as an official classified in Grade A*6, step 2, in accordance with Annex XIII of the Staff Regulations.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the application.

               2.

               Orders each party to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006, p. 86.


title: Case F-105/06: Action brought on 4 September 2006 — Lübking and Others v Commission

text:
               18.11.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/45

         Action brought on 4 September 2006 — Lübking and Others v Commission
   (Case F-105/06)
   (2006/C 281/82)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: Johannes Lübking (Brussels, Belgium) and Others (represented by: B. Cortese and C. Cortese, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicants claim that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Appointing Authority published in Administrative Notice No 85-2005 of 23 November 2005, in so far as it provided for the applicants' promotion to grade A*9, step 1;

               —

               so far as necessary, annul the Appointing Authority's decision of 23 May 2006 in so far as it rejected the complaint submitted by the applicants;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants, Commission officials, challenge the Appointing Authority's decision to promote them in the 2005 promotion procedure to grade A*9, a new grade inserted since 1 May 2004 between grades A*8 (formerly A7) and A*10 (formerly A6). They claim that the Appointing Authority should have promoted them, not to grade A*9 but to grade A*10, as it did in the 2004 promotion procedure for officials who, like the applicants, on 30 April 2004 were classified in grade A7 and were eligible for promotion to the higher grade A6.
   In support of their action, the applicants raise three pleas, the first of which alleges infringement of the principles of equal treatment and reasonable career prospects. The applicants claim that, in accordance with those principles, the officials who on 30 April 2004 were classified in grade A7 (renamed grade A*8 from 1 May 2004) and were eligible for promotion to the higher grade should all be subject to identical conditions as regards career progress. However, the officials who were promoted in November 2004 in the 2004 procedure — thus after the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations — were appointed after promotion to grade A*10, while those — such as the applicants — promoted in the 2005 procedure were only appointed to a lower grade, namely the intermediate grade A*9, even though the two groups of persons referred to above were in a position which was comparable in all respects.
   In connection with this plea, the applicants also raise a plea of illegality for the purpose of Article 241 EC of the General Implementing Provisions ('GIP') of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations applicable to the 2005 promotion procedure or, more fundamentally, of Article 45 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations, in that those provisions did not lay down transitional measures intended to ensure the observance of the principles of equal treatment and reasonable career prospects between officials who were of grade A7 on 30 April 2004 and eligible for promotion on that date to the higher grade A6.
   By their second plea, the applicants allege there was an infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations. They claim, inter alia, that Article 10(5) of the GIP of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations applicable to the 2004 promotion procedure guarantees to A7 officials eligible for promotion on 30 April 2004 (and reclassified as A*8 on 1 May 2004) career progress conditions comparable to those which they would have had under the career structure applicable until that date, by providing for, by means of a legal fiction (retroactive promotion) their promotion from grade A*8 directly to grade A*10. The applicants maintain that the adoption of that transitional measure created the legitimate expectation on their part that a measure having the same effect would also be adopted in subsequent promotion procedures.
   The third plea alleges that no reasons were stated for the contested decision. The applicants claim in that regard that, even if, by its nature, the promotion decision does not need to contain specific reasons for the Appointing Authority's choice, the authorities are nevertheless required to give reasons for their choice in the reply to the complaint brought against that decision. However, in the present case, the Appointing Authority only answered the complaints set out by the applicants very superficially and, in particular, did not answer the fundamental question raised by the complaint, which is connected with the inequality of treatment between A7 officials (reclassified as A*8) promoted in the 2005 promotion procedure and their counterparts promoted in the 2004 promotion procedure.


title: Case T-270/17: Action brought on 8 May 2017 — Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking v Revoind Industriale

text:
               17.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 231/33

         Action brought on 8 May 2017 — Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking v Revoind Industriale
   (Case T-270/17)
   (2017/C 231/41)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking (CSJU) (represented by: B. Mastantuono, Agent and by M. Velardo, lawyer)

      Defendant: Revoind Industriale Srl (Oricola, Italy)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               order the defendant to pay the CSJU the amount of EUR 625 793,42 in relation to the Grant Agreement for partners No 620108 ‘LOSITA-LOw Subsonic Investigation of a large complete Turboprop Aircraft’, plus the amount of EUR 3 240,41 as late payment interest calculated at a rate of 3,5 % for the period between 7 February 2017 and 1 April 2017;

               —

               order the defendant to pay EUR 60,01 per day by way of interest from 2 April 2017 until the date on which the debt is repaid in full; and

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on on the following plea in law.
   The applicant contends that the defendant has breached its contractual obligations, by failing to implement project LOSITA and by failing to provide CSJU with the relevant reports and deliverables, in accordance with Article II.2 Annex II of the Grant Agreement.
   Moreover, the defendant has failed to carry out the work to be performed as identified in Annex I therefore violating its obligations under Article II.3 lett. a) e) and h) of Annex II of the Grant Agreement.
   Accordingly, the applicant terminated the Grant Agreement on the basis of Article II.38 Annex II of the Grant Agreement and issued debit note for the pre-financing of EUR 625 793,42 that had already been paid by the coordinator to the defendant in compliance with the provisions of the Grant Agreement. Indeed the pre-financing remains the property of the applicant until final payment.
   The facts giving rise to Revoind Industriale S.r.l.’s obligations, as beneficiary of the Grant Agreement, are widely undisputed in the present case and the defendant’s objections are generic, incomplete and lack of any supporting element, thus appear to be completely unfounded.
   Accordingly, the applicant is entitled to ask for the recovery and the reimbursement of the amount paid to the defendant as pre-financing, increased by default interest.


title: Case C-115/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — French Republic v European Commission (Appeal — European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) — Community structural assistance in the region of Martinique — Reduction of financial assistance — Public works contracts — Compliance of operations with provisions of European Union law — Coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts — Directive 93/37/EEC — Article 2 — Concept of ‘direct subsidy’ — Concept of ‘facilities intended for sports, recreation and leisure’ )

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/24

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — French Republic v European Commission
   (Case C-115/12 P) (1)

   (Appeal - European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) - Community structural assistance in the region of Martinique - Reduction of financial assistance - Public works contracts - Compliance of operations with provisions of European Union law - Coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts - Directive 93/37/EEC - Article 2 - Concept of ‘direct subsidy’ - Concept of ‘facilities intended for sports, recreation and leisure’)
   2013/C 344/39
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: French Republic (represented by: E. Belliard and N. Rouam, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Dintilhac and A. Steiblytė, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 December 2011 in Case T-488/10 France v Commission, by which that Court dismissed the action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 5229 of 28 July 2010 concerning the cancellation of part of the contribution of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) under the single programming document in respect of objective 1 for Community structural assistance in the French region of Martinique — Coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts — Concept of ‘direct subsidy’ — Concept of ‘facilities intended for sports, recreation and leisure’ — Errors of law — Failure to state reasons

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 138, 12.5.2012.


title: Case T-50/16: Action brought on 3 November 2016 — Hungary v Commission

text:
               25.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/29

         Action brought on 3 November 2016 — Hungary v Commission
   (Case T-50/16)
   (2016/C 145/36)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Parties

      Applicant: Hungary (represented by: M. Fehér and G. Koós, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the European Commission, adopted on 24 November 2015, to register the European citizens’ initiative entitled ‘Wake Up Europe! Agir pour préserver le projet démocratique européen’;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               By its first plea in law, the applicant submits, that, by registering the citizens’ initiative in question, the Commission infringed Article 11(4) TEU, and Articles 2(1) and Article 4[(2)](b) of Regulation No 211/2011 (1) too because, according to the applicant, the initiation of the procedure provided for under Article 7 TEU (similar to infringement proceedings) cannot be regarded as a legal act of the Union required for the purpose of implementing the treaties. In addition, according to the applicant, the aim of a citizens’ initiative must be the initiation, by the Commission, of a legal act of the Union which materialises in new legislation incorporated in EU law.

               2.

               By its second plea in law, the applicant submits that, by its decision, the Commission infringed the right to sound administration, and the principles of legal certainty and equal treatment as well, and failed to fulfil its duty to state reasons. By that plea in law, the applicant submits, in essence, that given that the Commission, by that decision, departed radically from its previous practice in relation to the registration of citizens’ initiatives, earlier initiatives and those that may be presented in the future will not, as a result of that contradiction and lack of foreseeability, be afforded the same treatment.

               3.

               By its third plea in law, the applicant submits that the Commission’s decision infringed the principle of sincere cooperation laid down in Article 4(3) TEU. On the one hand, the Commission had previously indicated that the conditions for initiating a procedure against Hungary under Article 7 TEU had not been met, wherefore the decision registering the citizens’ initiative could let it be thought that the Commission does not find it inconceivable that the initiative in question may be well founded. On the other, the Commission, in accordance with that principle, ought to have informed Hungary of the existence of the citizens’ initiative, which concerns it directly, and given it an opportunity of submitting its observations.

      (1)  Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on the citizens’ initiative (Corrigendum in OJ 2014 L 235, p. 19).


title: Case T-720/15: Order of the General Court of 16 September 2016 — Commission v CINAR

text:
               9.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/56

         Order of the General Court of 16 September 2016 — Commission v CINAR
   (Case T-720/15) (1)

   (2017/C 006/70)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 59, 15.2.2016.


title: Case C-591/13: Action brought on 20 November 2013 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               25.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/11

         Action brought on 20 November 2013 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-591/13)
   2014/C 24/20
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: W. Mölls, W. Roels, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

      Forms of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by adopting and retaining provisions under which the tax on hidden reserves, which have been realised upon the sale for consideration of certain capital assets, is deferred by ‘transfer’ to newly purchased or produced capital assets until their sale, in so far as the latter assets belong to the capital assets of a taxpayer’s domestic permanent establishment, whereas such a deferral is not possible in so far as the same assets belong to the capital assets of a taxpayer’s permanent establishment which is located in another Member State or in another State of the European Economic Area, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 TFEU and Article 31 of the EEA Agreement (1);

               —

               order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Under the German provisions, the resulting profit on the sale of certain capital assets of a business is not immediately taxed where the taxpayer goes on to purchase anew or produce certain capital assets of the business within a certain time period. In that case, the taxation of the aforementioned profit from the sale of the original assets is deferred by way of a ‘transfer’ of the corresponding hidden reserves until the sale of the newly purchased or produced assets. That deferral can, however, be granted only where the newly purchased or produced assets belong to the capital assets of a domestic permanent establishment, and not, however, where the permanent establishment concerned is located in another Member State or in another State of the European Economic Area. According to the Commission, that rule infringes the freedom of establishment.

      (1)  Agreement of 2 May 1992 on the European Economic Area, OJ 1994 L 1, p. 3.


title: Case C-305/06: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 September 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Combined transport of goods between the Member States — Directive 92/106/EEC — Final road haulage leg forming an integral part of a combined transport operation — Nearest suitable railway station)

text:
               8.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 285/5

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 September 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-305/06) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Combined transport of goods between the Member States - Directive 92/106/EEC - Final road haulage leg forming an integral part of a combined transport operation - Nearest suitable railway station)
   (2008/C 285/06)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Zavvos and K. Simonsson, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: S. Chala, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 2 and 4 of Council Directive 92/106/EEC on the establishment of common rules for certain types of combined transport of goods between Member States (OJ 1992 L 368, p. 38) — Final road haulage leg forming an integral part of a combined transport operation — Requirement of a Greek road transport authorisation
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 224, 16.9.2006.


title: Case C-105/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Cuneo (Italy) lodged on 5 March 2014  — Criminal proceedings against Ivo Taricco and Others

text:
               24.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/10

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Cuneo (Italy) lodged on 5 March 2014 — Criminal proceedings against Ivo Taricco and Others
   (Case C-105/14)
   2014/C 194/12
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Cuneo

      Criminal proceedings against

   Ivo Taricco,
   Ezio Filippi,
   Isabella Leonetti,
   Nicola Spagnolo,
   Davide Salvoni,
   Flavio Spaccavento,
   Goranco Anakiev

      Questions referred

               (a)

               In so far as it provides for the limitation period to be extended by only a quarter following interruption and, therefore, allows crimes to become time barred, resulting in impunity, even though criminal proceedings were brought in good time, has the amendment to the last subparagraph of Article 160 of the Italian Criminal Code made by Law No 251 of 2005 led to infringement of the provision protecting competition in Article 101 TFEU?

               (b)

               Has the Italian State, in amending by Law No 251 of 2005 the last subparagraph of Article 160 of the Italian Criminal Code, in so far as this provides for the limitation period to be extended by only a quarter following interruption, which means therefore that there are no penal consequences for crimes committed by unscrupulous economic operators, unlawfully introduced a form of aid prohibited by Article 107 TFEU?

               (c)

               Has the Italian State, in amending by Law No 251 of 2005 the last subparagraph of Article 160 of the Italian Criminal Code, in so far as this provides for the limitation period to be extended by only a quarter following interruption, thus conferring impunity on those who exploit the Community directive, unlawfully added a further exemption to those exhaustively listed by Article 158 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006? (1)

               (d)

               In so far as it provides for the limitation period to be extended by only a quarter following interruption and, therefore, fails to penalise conduct that deprives the State of the resources necessary in order to meet its obligations to the European Union also, has the amendment to the last subparagraph of Article 160 of the Italian Criminal Code made by Law No 251 of 2005 led to breach of the principle of sound public finances laid down by Article 119 TFEU?

      (1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).


title: Case T-165/11: Action brought on 11 March 2011 — Stichting Regionaal Opleidingencentrum van Amsterdam v OHIM — Investimust (COLLEGE)

text:
               21.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 152/25

         Action brought on 11 March 2011 — Stichting Regionaal Opleidingencentrum van Amsterdam v OHIM — Investimust (COLLEGE)
   (Case T-165/11)
   2011/C 152/46
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Stichting Regionaal Opleidingencentrum van Amsterdam (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: R.M.R. van Leeuwen, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Investimust, S.A. (Geneva, Switzerland)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 January 2011 in case R 508/2010-4; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The word mark ‘COLLEGE’, for services in classes 39 and 43 — Community trade mark registration No 2645489

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The party requesting the declaration of invalidity grounded its request on absolute grounds for invalidity pursuant to Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the request for declaration of invalidity

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(c) and in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as also the Board of Appeal wrongly did not consider the evidence presented in appeal.


title: Case T-22/08: Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 June 2008 — Quest Diagnostics v OHIM — ALK-Abelló (DIAQUEST)

text:
               2.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 197/36

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 June 2008 — Quest Diagnostics v OHIM — ALK-Abelló (DIAQUEST)
   (Case T-22/08) (1)

   (2008/C 197/70)

      Language of the case: English

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

      (1)  OJ C 92, 12.4.2008.


title: Case T-539/11: Judgment of the General Court of 25 March 2014  — Deutsche Bank v OHIM (Leistung aus Leidenschaft) (Community trade mark  — Application for Community word mark Leistung aus Leidenschaft  — Trade mark consisting of an advertising slogan  — Absolute grounds for refusal  — No distinctive character  — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009  — Equal treatment  — Obligation to state reasons  — Evidence presented for the first time before the General Court)

text:
               12.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/32

         Judgment of the General Court of 25 March 2014 — Deutsche Bank v OHIM (Leistung aus Leidenschaft)
   (Case T-539/11) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark Leistung aus Leidenschaft - Trade mark consisting of an advertising slogan - Absolute grounds for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Equal treatment - Obligation to state reasons - Evidence presented for the first time before the General Court))
   2014/C 142/40
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Deutsche Bank AG (Frankfurt on Main) (represented by: R. Lange, T. Götting and G. Hild, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 August 2011 (Case R 188/2011-4) concerning an application for registration of word sign Leistung aus Leidenschaft as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Deutsche Bank AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 13, 14.1.2012.


title: Case F-108/10: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 25 July 2011 — Filice and others v Court of Justice (Civil service — Annual adjustment of the remuneration and pensions of officials and other EU staff — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               12.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/30

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 25 July 2011 — Filice and others v Court of Justice
   (Case F-108/10) (1)

   (Civil service - Annual adjustment of the remuneration and pensions of officials and other EU staff - No need to adjudicate)
   2012/C 138/67
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Filice and Others (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: B. Cortese, C. Cortese and F. Spitaleri, lawyers)

      Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union (represented by: A.V. Placco, agent)

      Re:

   Application to annul the defendant’s decisions, set out in the applicants’ salary slips, to limit the adjustment of their salaries, from July 2009, to an increase of 1,85 % within the framework of the annual adjustment of the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants pursuant to Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1296/2009 of 23 December 2009.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               Declares that there is no need to adjudicate in F-108/10, Filice and Others v Court of Justice.

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 30, 29.1.2011, p. 65.


title: Case C-590/15 P: Appeal brought on 13 November 2015 by Alain Laurent Brouillard against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 14 September 2015 in Case T-420/13, Brouillard v Court of Justice

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/11

         Appeal brought on 13 November 2015 by Alain Laurent Brouillard against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 14 September 2015 in Case T-420/13, Brouillard v Court of Justice
   (Case C-590/15 P)
   (2016/C 048/19)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Alain Laurent Brouillard (represented by: P. Vande Casteele, avocat)

      Other party to the proceedings: Court of Justice of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare the appeal well-founded and set aside the judgment of 14 September 2015 (T-420/13);

               —

               annul the letters of 5 June 2013 in which the Court of Justice of the European Union invited IDEST Communication SA, first, to submit bids in the context of a negotiated tender procedure relating to the conclusion of framework contracts for the translation of legal texts from certain official languages of the European Union into French (OJ 2013/S 47-075037) and, second, to confirm that the appellant would not be engaged in the provision of the services required under the contract.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               In connection with the provision of translation services, the Court of Justice of the European Union submitted that the appellant could not be accepted as a subcontractor of a company invited to tender, on the ground that ‘…the qualification [which he had obtained] from the University of Poitiers (a vocational master’s degree in law, economics and management, private law, lawyer-linguist specialism), even though it [was] a level 2 Master’s Degree, [did] not demonstrate full legal training’ and that ‘that assessment [was] consistent with an established practice of the French translation unit which does not regard the “lawyer-linguist” training offered by the University of Poitiers (Master’s Degree 2) as being legal training which satisfies the requirements set out in paragraph III.2.1 of the contract notice’, it being made clear that ‘[t]he method of obtaining the degree (“VAE”, or validation of acquired experience) [had] had no effect on the assessment …’.

               2.

               The appellant claims that there has been an infringement of the general principles of equality, freedom of establishment, free movement of workers and freedom to provide services, the principle of proportionality, Articles 14, 15, 16, 20, 21, 51 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Articles 45, 49, 51, 56 and 57 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the right to education and instruction, and an error in law and a misuse of power.

               3.

               The General Court erred in law in concluding that there was no ‘interference’ with the rights and freedoms referred to above. The error in law is all the more apparent given that the appellant has qualifications which are inherently, indeed essentially, intended to enable him to provide legal translation services. In addition, the Court of Justice at the very least ‘interfered’ with the appellant’s right to benefit from the studies undertaken as an academic lawyer and translator.

               4.

               The General Court also erred in law and misconstrued EU law in holding that the contracting authority was not bound by an obligation to make a comparison, on the ground that Directive 2005/36 (1) was not applicable and that therefore ‘the appellant could not rely on the case-law concerning the recognition of diplomas in order to assert, in essence, that the Court of Justice should have taken into account the appellant’s other qualifications and experience’.

               5.

               The General Court made another error in law in holding that the contracting authority was entitled to disregard the master’s degree in law (five years of post-Baccalauréat studies) awarded in France ‘in view of the various diplomas available in Belgium and France before and after the 2004 reform harmonising higher education diplomas in Europe’.

               6.

               The infringement of the fundamental freedoms and general principles of EU law referred to above, taken individually or in conjunction with the principle of proportionality, also stem from the fact that the decision to exclude the appellant was adopted without taking into consideration all of his diplomas, certificates and other qualifications and his relevant professional experience, and without comparing the academic and professional qualifications demonstrated by the appellant with those required by the tendering specifications.

      (1)  Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22).


title: Case T-322/03: Action brought on 19 September 2003 by Telefon und Buch Verlagsgesellschaft m.b.H against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               8.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/37

         Action brought on 19 September 2003 by Telefon und Buch Verlagsgesellschaft m.b.H against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case T-322/03)
   (2005/C 6/73)
   Language of the case: German
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 19 September 2003 by Telefon und Buch Verlagsgesellschaft m.b.H, Salzburg (Austria), represented by H. G. Zeiner, lawyer. The other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal were HEROLD Business Data GmbH & Co KG (previously Harold Business Data AG), Mödling, Austria.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               vary the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 June 2003 in the joined cases R 580/2001 and R 592/2001 to the effect that the application for cancellation of the Community trade mark WEISSE SEITEN No 371.096 is dismissed in its entirety; in the alternative

               —

               set aside the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 June 2003 in the joined cases R 580/2001 and R 592/2001 and instruct the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), possibly after supplementary proceedings, to come to a new decision and to dismiss in its entirety the application for cancellation of the Community trade mark WEISSE SEITEN No 371.096; order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:

               Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for cancellation was made:

               The word mark WEISSE SEITEN for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 41 and 42 — Community trade mark No 371.096

               Owner of the Community trade mark:

               The applicant

               Applicant for the cancellation of the Community trade mark:

               HEROLD Business Data GmbH & Co KG

               Decision of the Cancellation Division:

               Part cancellation of the Community trade mark in respect of telephone directories of names in printed form or on electronic storage media (Classes 9 and 16) and in respect of the publication of those telephone directories of names (Class 41)

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Dismissal of the appeal

               Grounds for the action:

                           —

                           The registered trade mark has distinctive character for the purposes of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94.

                           —

                           The registered sign is not descriptive of any of the goods or services in the list of goods and services in accordance with Article 7(1)(c).

                           —

                           The registered mark is not an indication in common use for the purposes of Article 7(1)(d).


15.5.1999               EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 136/13
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Commissione                              Removal from the registrer of Case C-329/98 (1)
Tributaria Regionale di Venezia — Sezione No 6, by order
of that court of 14 January, 25 February and 11 March                                                (1999/C 136/26)
1999 in the case of Veneta Assicurazione SpA against
                 Ufficio del Registro di Padova
                                                                             By order of 12 February 1999 the President of the Court of
                                                                             Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                          (Case C-102/99)                                    from the register of Case C-329/98: Commission of the
                                                                             European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.
                          (1999/C 136/23)
                                                                             (1) OJ C 327, 24.10.1998.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Commissione Tributa-
ria Regionale di Venezia — Sezione No 6, (Regional Tax Court
— Sixth Chamber, Venice) of 14 January, 25 February and
11 March 1999, which was received at the Court Registry on
22 March 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Veneta
Assicurazione SpA against Ufficio del Registro di Padova on
the question whether or not Note I to Article 4, Part I, of                         Removal from the register of Case C-85/98 (1)
Presidential Decree No 131/86 is contrary to the provisions of
Directive 69/335/EEC (1), as subsequently amended.                                                   (1999/C 136/27)
                                                                             By order of 16 February 1999 the President of the Court of
                                                                             Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                                                                             from the register of Case C-85/98: Commission of the
(1) OJ, English special edition, Series I 1969(II), p. 412.                  European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 184, 13.6.1998.
       Removal from the register of Case C-413/97 (1)
                          (1999/C 136/24)                                           Removal from the register of Case C-396/97 (1)
By order of 8 February 1999 the President of the First Chamber                                       (1999/C 136/28)
of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has
ordered the removal from the register of Case C-413/97:
Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic                    By order of 23 February 1999 the President of the First
of Germany.                                                                  Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                             has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-396/97:
                                                                             Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 41, 7.2.1998.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 26, 24.1.1998.
      Removal from the register of Case C-300/97 P (1)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-429/98 (1)
                          (1999/C 136/25)
                                                                                (1999/C 136/29)
By order of 11 February 1999 the President of the Sixth
Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Communities                  By order of 24 February 1999 the President of the Court of
has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-300/97 P:                Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
Tiercé Ladbroke SA v Commission of the European Communi-                     from the register of Case C-429/98: Commission of the
ties.                                                                        European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.
(1) OJ C 318, 18.10.1997.                                                    (1) OJ C 20, 23.1.1999.


title: Case C-31/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 11 December 2014  — Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) v Kessel medintim GmbH, formerly Kessel Marketing & Vertriebs GmbH, Janssen-Cilag GmbH (Appeal — Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for registration of the word mark Premeno — Opposition from the proprietor of the earlier national word mark Pramino — Limitation of the goods designated in the Community trade mark application — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 43(1))

text:
               9.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/16

         Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 11 December 2014 — Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) v Kessel medintim GmbH, formerly Kessel Marketing & Vertriebs GmbH, Janssen-Cilag GmbH
   (Case C-31/14 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for registration of the word mark Premeno - Opposition from the proprietor of the earlier national word mark Pramino - Limitation of the goods designated in the Community trade mark application - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 43(1)))
   (2015/C 046/21)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

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

      Other parties to the proceedings: Kessel medintim GmbH, formerly Kessel Marketing & Vertriebs GmbH (represented by: A. Jacob, Rechtsanwalt), Janssen-Cilag GmbH (represented by: M. Wenz, Rechtsanwältin)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

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

               3.

               Declares that Janssen-Cilag GmbH is to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 102, 7.4.2014.


title: Case C-499/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Tivoli (Italy) lodged on 7 November 2012 — Elisabetta Gentile v Ufficio Finanziario della Direzione Ufficio Territoriale di Tivoli and Others

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/26

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Tivoli (Italy) lodged on 7 November 2012 — Elisabetta Gentile v Ufficio Finanziario della Direzione Ufficio Territoriale di Tivoli and Others
   (Case C-499/12)
   2013/C 26/51
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Tivoli

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Elisabetta Gentile

      Defendants: Ufficio Finanziario della Direzione Ufficio Territoriale di Tivoli, Fabrizio Penna, Gianfranco Di Nicola

      Question referred

   Does Article 130 of Presidential Decree No 115 of 30 May 2002 on legal aid in Italian law — insofar as it stipulates that amounts payable to the defending council, the auxiliary to the judge and the court legal assessor are to be reduced by half — comply with Article 47(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which stipulates that legal aid is to be made available to those who lack sufficient resources insofar as such aid is necessary to ensure effective access to justice?