title: Case C-212/08: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 30 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Zeturf Ltd v Premier ministre (Scheme giving exclusive rights to manage off-course betting on horseracing — Article 49 EC — Restriction on the freedom to provide services — Overriding reasons in the public interest — Objectives of combating gambling addiction and fraudulent and criminal activities and of contributing to rural development — Proportionality — Restrictive measure to be aimed at reducing opportunities for gambling and limiting gambling activities in a consistent and systematic manner — Operator pursuing a dynamic commercial policy — Measured advertising policy — Assessment of the restriction on marketing by traditional channels and by the internet)

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/2

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 30 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Zeturf Ltd v Premier ministre
   (Case C-212/08) (1)

   (Scheme giving exclusive rights to manage off-course betting on horseracing - Article 49 EC - Restriction on the freedom to provide services - Overriding reasons in the public interest - Objectives of combating gambling addiction and fraudulent and criminal activities and of contributing to rural development - Proportionality - Restrictive measure to be aimed at reducing opportunities for gambling and limiting gambling activities in a consistent and systematic manner - Operator pursuing a dynamic commercial policy - Measured advertising policy - Assessment of the restriction on marketing by traditional channels and by the internet)
   2011/C 252/02
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Zeturf Ltd

      Defendant: Premier ministre

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Conseil d’État — Interpretation of Articles 49 EC and 50 EC — Permissibility of a scheme giving exclusive management of off-course betting on horseracing to a sole non-profit-making operator which even so pursues a dynamic commercial policy — Requirement to take into account only online betting on horseracing or the whole sector of betting on horseracing, of any type

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 49 EC must be interpreted as follows:

                           (a)

                           A Member State that is seeking to ensure a particularly high level of consumer protection in the gambling sector may be justified in taking the view that it is only by granting exclusive rights to a single body, subject to strict control by the public authorities, that it can tackle the risks connected with that sector and pursue the objective of preventing incitement to squander money on gambling and of combating addiction to gambling with sufficient effectiveness;

                           (b)

                           It is for the national court to determine whether:

                                       —

                                       the national authorities genuinely sought, at the material time, to ensure such a particularly high level of protection and whether, having regard to the level of protection sought, the establishment of a monopoly could actually be considered necessary, and

                                       —

                                       the State controls to which the activities of the body benefiting from the exclusive rights are, in principle, subject are actually implemented in the consistent and systematic pursuit of the objectives assigned to that body;

                           (c)

                           In order to be consistent with the objectives of combating criminality and reducing gambling opportunities, national legislation establishing a gambling monopoly must:

                                       —

                                       be based on a finding that criminal and fraudulent activities linked to gaming and gambling addiction are a problem in the territory of the Member State concerned, which the expansion of authorised and regulated activities would be capable of solving, and

                                       —

                                       allow only advertising that is measured and strictly limited to what is necessary in order to channel consumers towards controlled gaming networks.

               2.

               In order to assess the restriction on the freedom to provide services by a system that has established exclusive rights to organise horse-race betting, it is for the national courts to take account of all the substitutable channels of marketing for that betting, unless the consequence of using the internet is to increase the risks linked to games of chance beyond those that exist in relation to games marketed through traditional channels. Where the national legislation applies in the same way to the offering of horse-race betting online and to such betting through traditional channels, the restriction on the freedom to provide services should be assessed from the point of view of the restrictions placed on the entire sector concerned.

      (1)  OJ C 197, 2.8.2008.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 March 2003 in Case C-229/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat im Land Niederösterreich): Susanne Müller (Directive 2000/13/EC — Labelling and presentation of foodstuffs — Date of minimum durability — Article 18)

text:
10.5.2003                EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                               C 112/5
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                                            (Second Chamber)
                          of 13 March 2003
                                                                                of 13 March 2003
in Case C-229/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat im Land Niederöster-                        in Case C-333/01: Commission of the European Communi-
                     reich): Susanne Müller ( 1)                                                 ties v Kingdom of Spain (1)
(Directive 2000/13/EC — Labelling and presentation of                         (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
   foodstuffs — Date of minimum durability — Article 18)                      Directive 98/81/EC — Failure to transpose within the
                                                                                prescribed period)
                           (2003/C 112/08)
                                                                                (2003/C 112/09)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-229/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat im Land Niederös-
terreich (Austria) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
before that court against Susanne Müller, on the interpretation               In Case C-333/01, Commission of the European Communities
of Council Directive 79/112/EEC of 18 December 1978 on                        (Agent: G. Valero Jordana) v Kingdom of Spain (Agent: N. Diáz
the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating                   Abdad): Application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt,
to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs for              or to notify to the Commission, the laws, regulations and
sale to the ultimate consumer (OJ 1979 L 33, p. 1) and                        administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council
Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the                    Directive 98/81/EC of 26 October 1998 amending Directive
Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws                     90/219/EEC on the contained use of genetically modified
of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and              micro-organisms (OJ 1998 L 330, p. 13), the Kingdom of
advertising of foodstuffs (OJ 2000 L 109, p. 29), the Court                   Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive, the
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the                   Court (Second Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen, President
Chamber, D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann, S. von Bahr (Rapporteur)                     of the Chamber, V. Skouris and N. Colneric (Rapporteur),
and A. Rosas, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass,                 Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 March 2003, in which                    given a judgment on 13 March 2003, in which it:
it has ruled:
                                                                              1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the                          administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council
Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the                    Directive 98/81/EC of 26 October 1998 amending Directive
Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising               90/219/EEC on the contained use of genetically modified
of foodstuffs does not preclude a national rule which provides that,                micro-organisms, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its
where the period of minimum durability of a foodstuff expired, that                 obligations under that directive;
fact must be indicated separately, clearly and in a generally intelligible
manner. Such a rule is a non-harmonised national provision justified
on the ground of prevention of fraud as provided for in Article 18(2)         2.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
of the directive.
                                                                              (1 ) OJ C 317 of 10.11.2001.
( 1) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.


title: Case C-198/03 P: Appeal brought on 12 May 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment delivered on 26 February 2003 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-344/00 and T-345/00 between CEVA Santé animale SA and Pharmacia Entreprises SA, supported by Fédération européenne de la santé animale (Fedesa), and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 213/8                EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                           6.9.2003
in the dispute between Dr Georg Friedrich Baur Jr., executor of                 resources required to deliver the special reference quantity
the estate of Dr Georg Friedrich Baur Sr. and Hauptzollamt                      to the lessor before 1 July 1994, had ceased milk
Kiel on the following questions:                                                production and only resumed such production four
                                                                                months later, before 1 July 1994 at least, by means of
                                                                                other production resources both of its own and taken on
1.    Is Article 3a(1) (second indent) (b) of Council Regulation                lease?
      (EEC) No 857/84 (1) of 31 March 1984 adopting general
      rules for the application of the levy referred to in
      Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 (2) in the                (1 ) OJ L 90 of 01.04.1984, p. 13.
      milk and milk products sector, as amended by Council               (2 ) English special edition...: Series-I 68(I) p. 176.
      Regulation (EEC) No 1639/91 ( 3) of 13 June 1991, to be            (3 ) OJ L 150 of 15.06.1991, p. 35.
      construed as permitting a special reference quantity to be
      allocated provisionally to a formerly non-marketing
      holding which, as a result of its having switched in
      the meantime to the production of other agricultural
      products, was — at the time of its request for the
      allocation — able to produce the reference quantity
      requested only by means of production resources (feed-
      crop areas, cows and other production resources)
      additionally leased for that specific purpose?
                                                                         Appeal brought on 12 May 2003 by the Commission of
                                                                         the European Communities against the judgment deliver-
2.    On a proper construction of the second sentence of                 ed on 26 February 2003 by the Second Chamber of the
      the second subparagraph of Article 3a(4) of Council                Court of First Instance of the European Communities in
      Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting               Joined Cases T-344/00 and T-345/00 between CEVA Santé
      general rules for the application of the levy referred to in       animale SA and Pharmacia Entreprises SA, supported by
      Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and           Fédération européenne de la santé animale (Fedesa), and
      milk products sector, as amended by Council Regulation                   the Commission of the European Communities (1)
      (EEC) No 1639/91 of 13 June 1991, was the special
      reference quantity that had been definitively allocated
      also to be returned to the national reserve where the                                         (Case C-198/03 P)
      formerly non-marketing holding as defined in Question 1
      had received and could deliver the special reference
      quantity provisionally allocated to it only by means of                                        (2003/C 213/14)
      production resources (feed-crop areas, cows and other
      production resources) additionally leased for that specific
      purpose and where that holding had surrendered those
      leased production resources to the lessor before 1 July
      1994?                                                              An appeal against the judgment delivered on 26 February
                                                                         2003 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                         the European Communities in Joined Cases T-344/00 and
                                                                         T-345/00 between CEVA Santé animale SA and Pharmacia
3.    If Question 2 is answered in the negative:                         Entreprises SA, supported by Fédération européenne de la
                                                                         santé animale (Fedesa), and the Commission of the European
      On a proper construction of the second subparagraph of             Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
      Article 3a(4) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 of             European Communities on 12 May 2003 by the Commission
      31 March 1984 adopting general rules for the application           of the European Communities, represented by T. Christoforou
      of the levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC)          and M. Shotter, acting as agents, with an address for service in
      No 804/68 in the milk and milk products sector, as                 Luxembourg.
      amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1639/91 of
      13 June 1991, was the special reference quantity that had
      been definitively allocated also to be returned to the             The Applicant claims that the Court should:
      national reserve where the formerly non-marketing hold-
      ing had definitively abandoned enjoyment of the pro-
      duction resources required to deliver the special reference        —      set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance
      quantity before 1 July 1994?                                              (Second Chamber) of 26 February 2003 in Joined Cases
                                                                                T-344/00 and T-345/00 as regards the actions for
                                                                                damages;
4.    If Question 3 is answered in the affirmative:
                                                                         —      rule on the substance of the applications for damages by
                                                                                dismissing them entirely as unfounded;
      Is definitive abandonment for the purposes of Question 3
      to be understood as meaning that the formerly non-
      marketing holding had returned the leased production               —      order the applicants to pay the Commission’s costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 6.9.2003               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                             C 213/9
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           attempt to clarify the scientific and political complexities of
                                                                          this case as soon as possible, always keeping in mind the
                                                                          fundamental objective of protecting public health. The CFI’s
                                                                          findings can also be considered to be insufficiently motivated.
(1)    Error in the interpretation and application of Regulation
       2377/90 ( 2) and, in particular, Article 14 thereof
                                                                          (4) Error in the interpretation and application of
                                                                                Article 228 EC concerning the non-contractual liability
The findings of the CFI rest clearly on the interpretation that                  of the Community
Article 14 of Regulation 2377/90 gives the applicants an
enforceable right to have a decision taken on their applications          The Commission submits that the CFI committed two basic
before January 2000 and, secondly, imposes on the Com-                    legal errors. First, it failed to take into account the degree of
mission an absolute obligation to act by completing the                   discretion enjoyed by the Commission in these cases and held
scientific evaluation and by taking a final decision in all               without proper consideration that the alleged breach of the
applications concerning substances already in use in the                  principle of sound administration was ‘clear and serious’.
Member States on the date of entry into force of the Regulation           Second, it misinterpreted the provisions of Regulation 2377/
before 1 January 2000, or, failing this, to arrange for a                 90 and its relationship with other provisions of community
deferral of that deadline. The Commission submits that this               law, in particular directives 81/851 (3) and 96/22 (4), by
interpretation is a fundamental error of law that permeates the           accepting causality between the alleged damage and the
entire reasoning on which the CFI’s judgment is based.                    Commission’s ‘inaction’.
                                                                          (5)      Finally, the Commission submits that the CFI made an
                                                                          error in law in finding that the Commission is liable for
(2)    Errors of law in the interpretation and application of the         damages to Pharmacia by failing to take into account its
       principle of sound administration                                  different position compared with the position of the applicant
                                                                          Ceva.
It is submitted that the characterisation of the Commission’s
inaction by the CFI as being such that it gave rise to damages            (1 ) OJ C 45, 10/02/2001, p. 19.
for a clear and serious breach of the principle of sound                  (2 ) Council Regulation (EEC) no 2377/90 of 26 June 1990 laying
administration is based on the following errors regarding the                  down a Community procedure for the establishment of maximum
interpretation and application of that principle:                              residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of
                                                                               animal origin OJ L 224, 18/08/1990, p. 1.
                                                                          (3 ) Council Directive 81/851/EEC of 28 September 1981 on the
—     failure to assess the time taken in relation to the different            approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to
      procedural stages involved;                                              veterinary medicinal products OJ L 317, 06/11/1981, p. 1.
                                                                          (4 ) Council Directive 96/22/EC of 29 April 1996 concerning the
                                                                               prohibition on the use in stockfarming of certain substances
—     failure to give due weight to the complexity of the                      having a hormonal or thyrostatic action and of ß-agonists, and
      progesterone file in assessing the time taken by the                     repealing Directives 81/602/EEC, 88/146/EEC and 88/299/EEC
      Commission;                                                              OJ L 125, 23/05/1996, p. 3.
—     placing undue emphasis on the time limit found in
      Article 14 of Regulation 2377/90 and its relation to the
      principle of sound administration;
—     failure to take due account of the balancing of interests
      that the Commission had to undertake.                               Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties
                                                                          Tribunals, Manchester Tribunal Centre, by direction of
                                                                          that court dated 16 May 2003, in the case of University
                                                                          of Huddersfield Higher Education Corporation against
                                                                                Commissioners of Customs and Excise
(3)    Misconstrual of the evidence and inadequate reasoning
                                                                                (Case C-223/03)
The Commission submits that the CFI fundamentally miscon-
strued the factual and scientific record, in the sense that the                                      (2003/C 213/15)
claimed ‘inaction’ of the Commission to place progesterone in
one of the annexes to Regulation 2377/90 before 1 January
2000 was fully justified by the prevailing circumstances of this
case and the undisputed scientific uncertainty and the potential          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
for abuse of progesterone. Far from staying inactive, the                 European Communities by a direction of the VAT and Duties
Commission has been taking a number of concrete steps in its              Tribunals, Manchester Tribunal Centre, dated 16 May 2003,


title: Case F-75/10: Action brought on 10 September 2010 — Scheefer v Parliament

text:
               6.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/64

         Action brought on 10 September 2010 — Scheefer v Parliament
   (Case F-75/10)
   ()
   2010/C 301/103
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Séverine Scheefer (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: C. L’Hote-Tissier, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the defendant’s decisions refusing to issue a reasoned decision in relation to the applicant’s legal status and in particular refusing to reclassify the applicant’s temporary staff contract as engagement for an indefinite period in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 8 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities (CEOS) and compensation for the harm suffered by the applicant.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               stay proceedings pending the outcome of Case F-105/09 which is currently before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal;

               —

               otherwise, annul the decisions of 11 February 2010 and 10 June 2010 whereby the Parliament refused, by referring merely to its letter of 12 October 2009, to issue a reasoned decision in relation to the applicant’s legal status and in particular refusing notwithstanding two successive renewals to reclassify the applicant’s temporary staff contract as a contract for an indefinite period;

               —

               annul the Parliament’s decision of 12 February 2009;

               —

               annul the Parliament’s decision of 12 October 2009;

               —

               annul the legal classification of the initial contract and its expiry date set for 31 March 2009;

               —

               consequently, reclassify the applicant’s engagement as engagement for an indefinite period;

               —

               award compensation for the harm suffered by the applicant because of the Parliament’s conduct;

               —

               alternatively, and in the improbable event that the Tribunal were to conclude that notwithstanding the creation of an engagement for an indefinite period, the employment relationship had ended — which is not accepted — award damages for the wrongful termination of the contractual relationship;

               —

               further in the alternative, and in the improbable event that the Tribunal were to conclude that no reclassification was possible — which is not accepted — award damages for the harm suffered by the applicant because of the wrongful conduct of the European Parliament;

               —

               reserve to the applicant all other rights, remedies, pleas and actions, and in particular an order that the European Parliament pay damages corresponding to the extent of the harm suffered;

               —

               order the European Parliament to pay the costs.


title: Case T-582/10: Action brought on 23 December 2010 — Acron and Dorogobuzh v Council

text:
               19.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/30

         Action brought on 23 December 2010 — Acron and Dorogobuzh v Council
   (Case T-582/10)
   2011/C 55/55
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Acron OAO (Veliky Novgorod, Russian Federation) and Dorogobuzh OAO (Verkhnedneprovsky Settlement, Russian Federation), (represented by: B. Evtimov, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 856/2010 of 27 September 2010 (1), insofar as it affects the applicants; and

               —

               Order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By means of its application, the applicants seek, pursuant to Article 263 TFUE, the annulment of Council Regulation (EU) 856/2010, which terminated a partial interim review initiated pursuant to the request of the applicants for a change in the form of anti-dumping measure by including a related trader in their undertaking in force.
   In support of their submissions, the applicants put forward the following pleas in law:

               The applicants submit that the Union institutions used a legally flawed basis to reject their request and terminate the partial interim review without a change of measure.

               More specifically, the applicants claim that the Union institutions breached Article 143(1)(a) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1) and made a manifest errors of assessment in finding that their related trader was related to another company.

               Furthermore, the applicants submit that in the conduct of their investigation and findings in Council Regulation (EU) 856/2010 the institutions breached Article 5(4) TEU requiring the respect by the Union institutions of the fundamental EU law principle of proportionality, and of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights embodying the principle of good administration.

      (1)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 856/2010 of 27 September 2010 terminating the partial interim review of Regulation (EC) No 661/2008 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia (OJ 2010 L 254, p. 5)


title: Case T-305/11: Action brought on 8 June 2011 — Italmobiliare v Commission

text:
               6.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 232/38

         Action brought on 8 June 2011 — Italmobiliare v Commission
   (Case T-305/11)
   2011/C 232/65
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Italmobiliare SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: M. Siragusa, F. Moretti, L. Nascimbene, G. Rizza and M. Piergiovanni, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul, in whole or in part, the contested decision;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on 6 pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the choice of addressee for the contested decision was incorrect, in breach of Article 18(1) of Regulation No 1/2003, in that the contested decision was addressed to Italmobiliare, a mere financial holding company — which, moreover, does not hold 100 % of the capital — instead of to Italcementi, which is the operating holding company in the group. The Commission thus acted in breach of the principle of audi alteram partem and the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, selecting the applicant as the addressee of the contested decision when that company has to date remained completely outside the ambit of the investigation. The applicant pleads, lastly, breach of the principle of non-discrimination, since Italmobiliare is the only company to be involved in the procedure which is purely a financial holding company.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 18(1) of Regulation No 1/2003 in so far as the Commission launched an investigation and adopted a binding measure when it had no power to do so.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality. First, the means employed are not appropriate for achieving the aims pursued, in that the Commission availed itself of Article 18 of Regulation No 1/2003 in the context of an investigation which was not based on specific evidence and the subject of which had not been defined, in order to gather evidence which it should have obtained through an investigation of the sector, in accordance with Article 17 of Regulation No 1/2003. Moreover, the contested decision has not struck a proper balance between the interest in the investigation and the harm caused to the individual interested parties, in that the Commission unduly placed on the applicant disproportionate and unreasonable obligations relating to the tracing, collating and communication of information.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the duty under Article 296 TFEU to state reasons. The Commission failed to indicate in the measure the reasons on the basis of which it chose to use, by way of legal instrument, a decision under Article 18(3) of Regulation No 1/2003. The measure is also flawed for lack of reasons regarding the subject-matter and purpose of the request for information, or the need for the information requested for the purposes of the ongoing investigation. The breach of the duty to state reasons takes the form both of an infringement of essential procedural requirements for the purposes of Article 263 TFEU and of a breach of the applicant’s rights of defence.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging the unlawfulness of the contested decision for breach of the principle of audi alteram partem. The few days allowed by the Commission for submitting comments on the questionnaire appended to the Communication of 4 November was manifestly too short a time in which to exercise the right to be heard. Furthermore, the Communication of 4 November contains material which is somewhat different from that of the contested decision: the Commission thus prevented the applicant from defending itself in relation to the various points subsequently inserted in the final measure. Moreover, on a number of points, the Commission took no notice of the comments submitted. As a consequence, the purpose of the inter partes element of the procedure was thwarted, narrowing the applicant’s prospects for mounting a defence and damaging its position vis-à-vis the proceedings.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of sound administration, as reflected by (i) the lack of coordination between the various questionnaires sent from time to time, which underwent re-numbering, re-formatting, methodological adaptation and supplementation; (ii) the remarkable length of the investigation, which extended beyond the limits of reasonableness; and (iii) the way in which the Commission managed the procedure.


title: Case C-297/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam (Netherlands), lodged on 29 July 2009 — Criminal proceedings against X

text:
               16.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 11/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam (Netherlands), lodged on 29 July 2009 — Criminal proceedings against X
   (Case C-297/09)
   2010/C 11/20
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Gerechtshof te Amsterdam

      Party to the main proceedings

      Respondent: X

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does a situation in which a person who is a citizen of the European Union, and against whom there are grave presumptions that the main purpose of his stay in a Member State of the European Community other than that of which he is a national is to engage in criminal activities, come within the scope or area of application of the EC Treaty, in particular of the provisions of Articles 12 EC, 18 EC, 43 EC et seq. and 49 EC et seq?

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative in respect of Article18 EC:

                           (a)

                           Should a provision such as that contained in Article 67(2) of the Netherlands Code of Criminal Procedure, in so far as it makes possible the pre-trial detention of persons who come within the scope of Article 18 EC but who have a fixed place of abode or residence in a Member State other than the Netherlands, be regarded as constituting a restriction of the right to move and reside freely within the meaning of that provision?

                           (b)

                           If that is the case, does that provision, in so far as it makes possible the pre-trial detention of citizens of the European Union who have a fixed place of abode or residence in a Member State other than the Netherlands, given the importance of the effective tracing of suspects, prosecution and dispensation of justice, constitute an acceptable justification based on objective considerations in the public interest which are unconnected to the person concerned and are proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued by the national law?

               3.

               If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative in respect of Article 49 EC et seq.: should a provision such as that contained in Article 67(2) of the Netherlands Code of Criminal Procedure, in so far as it makes possible the pre-trial detention of nationals of a Member State who have a fixed place of abode or residence in a Member State other than the Netherlands, be regarded as a restriction of the freedom to provide services within the meaning of Article 49 EC et seq. in that it involves discrimination based on the fact that the provider of the services does not have a fixed place of abode or residence in the country where the services are provided but does have one in another Member State of the EC?

               4.

               If the answer to either Question 2 or Question 3 is in the negative: should a provision such as that contained in Article 67(2) of the Netherlands Code of Criminal Procedure, in so far as it makes possible the pre-trial detention of nationals of a Member State who have a fixed place of abode or residence in a Member State other than the Netherlands, be regarded as a form of discrimination on grounds of nationality, as prohibited under Article 12 EC (general prohibition of discrimination within the scope of application of the EC Treaty), Article 43 EC et seq. (prohibition of discrimination on the basis of nationality in relation to the freedom of establishment) and Article 49 EC et seq. (prohibition of discrimination on the basis of nationality in relation to freedom to provide services)?

               5.

               In so far as the answer to either Question 3 or Question 4 is in the affirmative: should a provision such as that contained in Article 67(2) of the Netherlands Code of Criminal Procedure, in so far as it makes possible the pre-trial detention of [nationals of] a Member State who have a fixed place of residence or abode in a Member State other than the Netherlands, given the importance of the effective tracing of suspects, prosecution and dispensation of justice, be regarded as legally valid on grounds of public policy, public security or public health within the terms of Articles 45 EC to 48 EC and Article 55 EC?


title: Case C-40/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat im Land Niederösterreich, Aussenstelle Mistelbach by order of that Court of 29 January 2002 in the case of an appeal by Margareta Scherndl

text:
4.5.2002              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 109/25
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverwal-               1.    Does a procedure to constitute a liability limitation fund
tungsgericht by order of that Court of 24 October 2001                      pursuant to an application by a shipowner under the
in the case of OMEGA Spielhallen- und Automatenaufstel-                     Brussels Convention of 10 October 1957 constitute
lungs-GmbH against Oberbürgermeisterin der Bundes-                          proceedings within the meaning of Article 21 of the
                           stadt Bonn                                       1968 Brussels Convention (1) where it is evident from the
                                                                            application, where the relevant names are stated, who
                                                                            might be affected thereby as a potential injured party?
                         (Case C-36/02)
                                                                      2.    Is an order to constitute a liability limitation fund under
                                                                            the Netherlands procedural rules in force in 1986 a
                        (2002/C 109/40)                                     judgment within the meaning of Article 25 of the 1968
                                                                            Brussels Convention?
                                                                      3.    Can a limitation fund which was constituted on 27 May
                                                                            1987 by a Netherlands court pursuant to Netherlands
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      procedural rules then in force without prior service on an
European Communities by order of the Bundesverwaltungsge-                   affected creditor now be denied recognition in another
richt (Federal Administrative Court) of 24 October 2001,                    Member State in relation to the creditor concerned
received at the Court Registry on 12 February 2002, for a                   pursuant to Article 27(2) of the 1968 Brussels Conven-
preliminary ruling in the case of OMEGA Spielhallen- und                    tion?
Automatenaufstellungs-GmbH against Oberbürgermeisterin
der Bundesstadt Bonn on the following question:                       4.    If Question 3 is answered in the affirmative, is the creditor
                                                                            concerned deprived of its right to rely on Article 27(2) by
Is it compatible with the provisions on freedom to provide                  virtue of the fact that in the Member State which
services and the free movement of goods contained in the                    constituted the limitation fund it raised the matter
Treaty establishing the European Community for a particular                 of jurisdiction before a higher court without having
commercial activity — in this case the operation of a so-                   previously objected to default of service?
called ‘laserdrome’ involving simulated killing action — to be
prohibited under national law because it offends against the
values enshrined in the Basic (Constitutional) Law?                   (1) 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of
                                                                          judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ L 204, 1975,
                                                                          p. 28) modified by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the
                                                                          accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic
                                                                          with the adjustments made to them by the Convention on the
                                                                          accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, of Ireland and of the
                                                                          United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the
                                                                          adjustments made to them by the Convention on the accession of
                                                                          the Hellenic Republic (OJ L 285, 1989, p. 1).
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Højesterets
Anke- og Kæremålsudvalg by order of 8 February 2002 in
the case of Mærsk Olie & Gas A/S against M. de Haan en
W. de Boer, in the person of its owners Martinus de Haan
                     and Willem de Boer
                                                                      Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger
                                                                      Verwaltungssenat im Land Niederösterreich, Aussenstelle
                         (Case C-39/02)                               Mistelbach by order of that Court of 29 January 2002 in
                                                                               the case of an appeal by Margareta Scherndl
                        (2002/C 109/41)                                                         (Case C-40/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 109/42)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Højesterets Anke- og
Kæremålsudvalg (Appeals and Objections Committee of the               Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Supreme Court) of 8 February 2002, received at the Court              European Communities by order of the Unabhängiger Verwal-
Registry on 13 February 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the         tungssenat im Land Niederösterreich, Aussenstelle Mistelbach
case of Mærsk Olie & Gas A/S against M. de Haan en W. de              of 29 January 2002, received at the Court Registry on
Boer, in the person of its owners Martinus de Haan and Willem         14 February 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of an
de Boer on the following questions:                                   appeal by Margareta Scherndl on the following questions:
 ---pagebreak--- C 109/26               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         4.5.2002
1.   In the case of indications of vitamin content, it is possible            applying derogations in such a way as to take no account
     to speak of an ‘average value’ within the meaning                        of the substitutive nature of enriched food or drink
     of Article 1(k) of Council Directive 90/496/EEC of                       products, with the consequence that such products
     24 September 1990 on nutrition labelling for foodstuffs                  enriched with Vitamin A (in the form of retinoYden),
     (OJ 1990 L 276, p. 40, as amended in OJ 1991 L 140;                      vitamin D, folic acid, selenium, copper or zinc, cannot be
     ‘the nutrition labelling directive’) where the figure given,             marketed in the Netherlands since they are not substitute
     based on the manufacturer’s analysis of the food within                  products or reconstituted food or drink products within
     the meaning of Article 6(8)(a) of that directive, is the                 the meaning of the abovementioned decree on the
     value which the product has at the end of the minimum                    addition of micro-foodstuffs to food, unless the addition
     conservation period?                                                     in question presents no risk to public health and at the
                                                                              same time meets an actual need in connection with food.
2.   Does the definition of average value under Article 6(8) of
     the nutrition labelling directive leave a free choice in
     relation to the reference date and the size of permissible
     deviations?                                                        2.    Order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.
3.   Is the nutrition labelling directive, in so far as it contains
     indications of the nutritional value based on vitamin
     content, to be disapplied on the ground that:
     (a)   it is too vague in relation to the definition
           (Article 1(k) of the nutrition labelling directive) and
           calculation (Article 6(8) of that directive) of average      Pleas in law and main arguments
           value, or because of the lack of reference dates or
           information as to permitted deviations; or
     (b) it contains provisions that are disproportionate to
           the objective sought?
                                                                        The system at issue concerns food in general and is therefore
                                                                        not affected by Directive 89/398/EEC (1). Nor may the ingredi-
                                                                        ents prohibited by that system be regarded as technically
                                                                        defined additives (Directives 89/107/EEC, 94/36/EC, and
                                                                        95/2/EC) (2). European Parliament and Council Directive
                                                                        No 95/2/EC on food additives other than colours and sweet-
                                                                        eners (OJ 1995 L 61, p. 1, as amended) and European
                                                                        Parliament and Council Directive No 94/36/EC on colours for
                                                                        use in foodstuffs (OJ 1994 L 237, p. 13) The matters at issue
Action brought on 14 February 2002 by the Commission                    in the present case fall therefore to be determined solely in
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the                  accordance with Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty, as they
                           Netherlands                                  applied at the time of expiry of the most recent deadline
                                                                        contained in the reasoned opinions in the present Treaty —
                          (Case C-41/02)                                infringement proceedings (21 February 1999).
                         (2002/C 109/43)
                                                                        The system at issue, under which certain enriched food and
An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought            drink products are banned unless a derogation is obtained
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on              from the Minister of Food plainly constitutes a measure having
14 February 2002 by the Commission of the European                      equivalent effect under Article 30 of the EC Treaty. The
Communities, represented by H. Van Lier and H.M.H. Speyart,             requirements that ‘an actual food requirement must be met’ and
acting as Agents.                                                       that there be ‘no risk to public health’ entail an infringement of
                                                                        the scheme of Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty since the
                                                                        result of those requirements is to impose on the person
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        applying for a derogation a disproportionate burden of proof
                                                                        in regard to the possible danger to public health which means
1.   Declare that the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed             in practice that the derogations at issue in this case are never
     to fulfil its obligations under Articles 30 and 36 of the          granted. Moreover, the systematically applied requirement of
     EC Treaty, first, by enacting and applying Article 10(1) of        the existence of an actual food-related requirement reinforces
     the Decree on Preparation and Processing of Foodstuffs             existing national dietary patterns which in itself constitutes
     and, subsequently, also Articles 2(1) and 5 of the Decree          a disguised and therefore unlawful restriction on the free
     on the addition of micro-foodstuffs to food, and by                movement of goods. Nor does the Netherlands policy take


title: Case T-489/11 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 14 October 2011 — Rousse Industry v European Commission (Application for interim measures — State aid — Decision declaring aid to be incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery — Application for suspension of operation — Failure to have regard to formal requirements — Inadmissibility)

text:
               3.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/19

         Order of the President of the General Court of 14 October 2011 — Rousse Industry v European Commission
   (Case T-489/11 R)
   (Application for interim measures - State aid - Decision declaring aid to be incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery - Application for suspension of operation - Failure to have regard to formal requirements - Inadmissibility)
   2011/C 355/35
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Parties

      Applicant: Rousse Industry (Rousse, Bulgaria) (represented by: A. Angelov and S. Panov, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Urraca Caviedes and D. Stefanov, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for suspension of operation of Commission Decision C(2011) 4903 final of 13 July 2011 declaring incompatible with the internal market the aid granted by Bulgaria in favour of Rousse Industry in the form of rescheduling of debts owed to the State (State aid C 12/2010 and N 389/2009) in so far as that decision orders the recovery of that aid from the applicant.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case F-36/13: Action brought on 18 April 2013 — ZZ v Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency

text:
               20.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 207/58

         Action brought on 18 April 2013 — ZZ v Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency
   (Case F-36/13)
   2013/C 207/99
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

      Defendant: Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision to terminate the applicant’s contract of employment on the basis of Article 47(c)(i) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants (CEOS).

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 24 July 2012 of the Agency;

               —

               In consequence:

                           —

                           restore the applicant to his post with effect from 25 October 2012 and order the Agency to pay his remuneration with retroactive effect;

                           —

                           withdraw the contested decision from the applicant’s personnel file and all documents connected with the present proceedings;

               —

               Order the Agency to pay him the sum of EUR 10 000 as compensation for the non-pecuniary harm suffered;

               —

               Order the Agency to pay the costs.


title: Case C-137/12: Action brought on 14 March 2012 — European Commission v Council of the European Union

text:
               26.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/24

         Action brought on 14 March 2012 — European Commission v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-137/12)
   2012/C 151/37
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Cujo, I. Rogalski and R. Vidal Puig, agents)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Council decision 2011/853/EU of 29 November 2011 on the signing, on behalf of the Union, of the European Convention on the legal protection of services based on, or consisting of, conditional access (1)

               —

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

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By its first plea, the Commission claims that Article 114 TFEU is not an appropriate legal basis for the adoption of the contested decision. According to the applicant, the decision should have been based on Article 207(4) TFEU which authorises the Council to conclude international agreements in the field of the common commercial policy, as defined in Article 207(1) TFEU. The present convention does not aim to ‘improve the functioning of the internal market’, its principal objective being to ‘facilitate’ or ‘promote’ the provision of services based on conditional access between the European Union and other European countries. It would have a direct and immediate effect on the provision of services based on conditional access and on the trade in illicit devices and on the services relating to those devices. Consequently, the convention falls within the scope of the common commercial policy.
   By its second plea, the applicant claims that the European Union’s exclusive external competence (Article 2(1) and 3(1) and (2) TFEU) has been infringed because the Council considered that the conclusion of the convention did not fall within the European Union’s exclusive competence whereas the convention falls within the common commercial policy or, in any case, that the conclusion of the convention is capable of affecting common rules or of altering their scope.

      (1)  OJ 2011 L 336, p. 1.


title: Case T-258/09: Action brought on 6 July 2009 — i-content Ltd Zweigniederlassung Deutschland v OHIM (BETWIN)

text:
               29.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/45

         Action brought on 6 July 2009 — i-content Ltd Zweigniederlassung Deutschland v OHIM (BETWIN)
   (Case T-258/09)
   2009/C 205/82
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: i-content Ltd Zweigniederlassung Deutschland (Berlin, Germany) (represented by A. Nordermann, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 4 May 2009 in appeal case R 1528/2008-4 concerning Community trade mark application No 006849641 — word mark: BETWIN — and the earlier decision of the Office of 10 September 2008 concerning Community trade mark application No 006849641 — word mark: BETWIN;

               —

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

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: word mark ‘BETWIN’ for services in Classes 35, 38 and 41 (application No 6849641)

      Decision of the Examiner: rejection of the application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation (CE) No 207/2009 (1)) as the mark applied for has the requisite distinctive character and there is no need to maintain it in the public domain; Infringement of Article 79 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, the principle of equal treatment in connection with Articles 6 and 14 ECHR; infringement of Article 49 EC

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


title: Case C-71/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (United Kingdom) made on 8 February 2010 — Office of Communications v The Information Commissioner

text:
               1.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/20

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (United Kingdom) made on 8 February 2010 — Office of Communications v The Information Commissioner
   (Case C-71/10)
   2010/C 113/31
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Office of Communications

      Defendant: The Information Commissioner

      Question referred

   Under Council Directive 2003/4/EC (1), where a public authority holds environmental information, disclosure of which would have some adverse effects on the separate interests served by more than one exception (in casu, the interests of public security served by article 4(2)(b) and those of intellectual property rights served by article 4(2)(e)), but it would not do so, in the case of either exception viewed separately, to any extent sufficient to outweigh the public interest in disclosure, does the Directive require a further exercise involving the cumulation of the separate interests served by the two exceptions and their weighing together against the public interest in disclosure?

      (1)  Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC
   OJ L 41, p. 26


title: Case C-519/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Wuppertal (Germany) lodged on 14 December 2009 — Dieter May v AOK Rheinland/Hamburg — Die Gesundheitskasse

text:
               27.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/8

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Wuppertal (Germany) lodged on 14 December 2009 — Dieter May v AOK Rheinland/Hamburg — Die Gesundheitskasse
   (Case C-519/09)
   2010/C 80/14
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Arbeitsgericht Wuppertal

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Claimant: Dieter May

      Defendant: AOK Rheinland/Hamburg — Die Gesundheitskasse

      Question referred

   Does the concept of worker within the meaning of Article 7(1) and (2) of Directive 2003/88/EC (corresponding to Article 7 of Directive 93/104/EC) … (1) also cover an employee subject to staff regulations (Dienstordnungsangestellter) in a public-law body whose autonomous regulations issued on the basis of authorisation under federal legislation (Paragraph 351 of the Reichsversicherungsordnung (National Social Insurance Code)) refer, in respect of the holiday entitlement of such an employee, to the provisions applicable to public servants (here Paragraph 101 of the Landesbeamtengesetz NW (Law on public servants of the Land North Rhine-Westphalia) in conjunction with the Verordnung über den Erholungsurlaub der Beamtinnen und Beamten und Richterinnen und Richter im Lande Nordrhein-Westfalen (Regulations on the holiday leave of public servants and judges in the Land North Rhine-Westphalia))?

      (1)  Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003, L 299, p. 9).


title: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 July 2004 in Case C-419/03: Commission of the European Communities against French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Partial failure to transpose — Burden of proof — Directive 2001/18/EC)

text:
               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/15

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fourth Chamber)
   of 15 July 2004
   in Case C-419/03: Commission of the European Communities against French Republic (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Partial failure to transpose - Burden of proof - Directive 2001/18/EC)
   (2004/C 228/29)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-419/03: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: U. Wölker and F. Simonetti) against French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues and D. Petrausch) — application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC (OJ 2001 L 106, p. 1) or, in any event, by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, President of the Chamber, N. Colneric and K. Schiemann (Rapporteur), Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 July 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               By failing to adopt within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose into national law the provisions of Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC which differ from or go beyond those of Council Directive 90/220/EEC of 23 April 1990 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 2001/18.

               2.

               The remainder of the action is dismissed.

               3.

               Each party is to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 275 of 15.11.2003.


title: Case C-586/10: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 January 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — Bianca Kücük v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (Social policy — Directive 1999/70/EC — Clause 5(1)(a) of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work — Successive fixed-term employment contracts — Objective reasons liable to justify the renewal of such contracts — National rules justifying the use of fixed-term contracts in cases of temporary replacement — Permanent or recurring need for replacement staff — Taking into account of all circumstances surrounding the renewal of successive fixed-term contracts)

text:
               10.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/4

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 January 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — Bianca Kücük v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen
   (Case C-586/10) (1)

   (Social policy - Directive 1999/70/EC - Clause 5(1)(a) of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work - Successive fixed-term employment contracts - Objective reasons liable to justify the renewal of such contracts - National rules justifying the use of fixed-term contracts in cases of temporary replacement - Permanent or recurring need for replacement staff - Taking into account of all circumstances surrounding the renewal of successive fixed-term contracts)
   2012/C 73/06
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesarbeitsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Bianca Kücük

      Defendant: Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesarbeitsgericht — Interpretation of Clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999, which is set out in the Annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43) — National rules allowing the temporary replacement of employees as an objective reason justifying the use of fixed-term contracts — ‘Objective reasons’ liable to justify the renewal of such contracts

      Operative part of the judgment

   Clause 5(1)(a) of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999, which is set out in the Annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as meaning that a temporary need for replacement staff, provided for by national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, may, in principle, constitute an objective reason under that clause. The mere fact that an employer may have to employ temporary replacements on a recurring, or even permanent, basis and that those replacements may also be covered by the hiring of employees under employment contracts of indefinite duration does not mean that there is no objective reason under clause 5(1)(a) of the Framework Agreement or that there is abuse within the meaning of that clause. However, in the assessment of the issue whether the renewal of fixed-term employment contracts or relationships is justified by such an objective reason, the authorities of the Member States must, for matters falling within their sphere of competence, take account of all the circumstances of the case, including the number and cumulative duration of the fixed-term employment contracts or relationships concluded in the past with the same employer.

      (1)  OJ C 89, 19.3.2011.


title: Case T-693/13: Judgment of the General Court of 10 May 2016 — Mikhalchanka v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Belarus — Freezing of funds and economic resources — Restrictions on entry into, and transit through, the territory of the European Union — Retention of the applicant’s name on the list of persons concerned — Journalist — Rights of defence — Obligation to state reasons — Error of assessment)

text:
               20.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 222/12

         Judgment of the General Court of 10 May 2016 — Mikhalchanka v Council
   (Case T-693/13) (1)

   ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Belarus - Freezing of funds and economic resources - Restrictions on entry into, and transit through, the territory of the European Union - Retention of the applicant’s name on the list of persons concerned - Journalist - Rights of defence - Obligation to state reasons - Error of assessment))
   (2016/C 222/13)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Aliaksei Mikhalchanka (Minsk, Belarus) (represented by: M. Michalauskas, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix and F. Naert, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Council Decision 2013/534/CFSP of 29 October 2013 amending Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus (OJ 2013 L 288, p. 69) and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1054/2013 of 29 October 2013 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ 2013 L 288, p. 1)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court hereby:

               1.

               Dismisses the application of the Council of the European Union for a ruling that there is no need to adjudicate;

               2.

               Annuls, in so far as they concern Mr Aliaksei Mikhalchanka:

                           —

                           Council Decision 2013/534/CFSP of 29 October 2013 amending Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus;

                           —

                           Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1054/2013 of 29 October 2013 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus;

               3.

               Orders the Council to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Mikhalchanka.

      (1)  OJ C 93, 29.3.2014.


title: Case C-485/07: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 May 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep — Netherlands) — Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen v H. Akdas, H. Agartan, Z. Akbulut, M. Bas, K. Yüzügüllüer, E. Keskin, C. Topaloglu, A. Cubuk, S. Sariisik (EEC-Turkey Association — Social security for migrant workers — Waiving of residence clauses — Scope — Supplement to the invalidity pension paid by the host Member State in order to ensure a minimum standard of living for the recipients — Amendment of national legislation — Withdrawal of that supplement when the recipient resides outside the territory of the Member State concerned)

text:
               16.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/3

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 May 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep — Netherlands) — Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen v H. Akdas, H. Agartan, Z. Akbulut, M. Bas, K. Yüzügüllüer, E. Keskin, C. Topaloglu, A. Cubuk, S. Sariisik
   (Case C-485/07) (1)

   (EEC-Turkey Association - Social security for migrant workers - Waiving of residence clauses - Scope - Supplement to the invalidity pension paid by the host Member State in order to ensure a minimum standard of living for the recipients - Amendment of national legislation - Withdrawal of that supplement when the recipient resides outside the territory of the Member State concerned)
   2011/C 211/04
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Centrale Raad van Beroep

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen

      Defendants: H. Akdas, H. Agartan, Z. Akbulut, M. Bas, K. Yüzügüllüer, E. Keskin, C. Topaloglu, A. Cubuk, S. Sariisik

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary hearing — Centrale Raad van Beroep — Interpretation of Article 9 of the Association Agreement, of Article 59 of the Additional Protocol to the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey signed at Brussels on 23 November 1970 and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2760/72 of 19 December 1972 (OJ 1973 C 133, p. 17) and of Article 6(1) of Decision No 3/80 of the Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the application of the social security schemes of the Member States of the European Communities to Turkish workers and members of their families (OJ 1983 C 110, p. 60) — National legislation providing for the grant of a supplementary benefit by means of insurance against incapacity for work in order to reach the level of the minimum wage — Restrictions in the event of residence outside the Netherlands — Two speed withdrawal of supplementary benefit according to place of residence and nationality

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The first subparagraph of Article 6(1) of Decision No 3/80 of the Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the application of the social security schemes of the Member States of the European Communities to Turkish workers and members of their families must be interpreted as having direct effect, so that Turkish nationals to whom that provision applies are entitled to rely on those provisions directly before the Member States’ courts in order to have rules of national law which are contrary to it disapplied;

               2.

               The first subparagraph of Article 6(1) of Decision No 3/80 must be interpreted, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as Article 4 of the Law on supplementing benefits (Toeslagenwet) of 6 November 1986, which withdraws the award of a benefit such as the supplement to invalidity benefit, made under the national legislation, from former Turkish migrant workers such as the respondents in the main proceedings when they have returned to Turkey after losing their right to remain in the host Member State because they became incapacitated in that Member State.

               3.

               Article 9 of the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey, signed at Ankara on 12 September 1963 by the Republic of Turkey and by the Member States of the EEC and the Community and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Decision 64/732/EEC of 23 December 1963, does not apply to a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 22, 26.1.2008.


title: Case T-239/13: Action brought on 23 April 2013 — Atmeh v OHIM — Fretier (MONTALE MTL MONTALE Dezign)

text:
               20.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 207/37

         Action brought on 23 April 2013 — Atmeh v OHIM — Fretier (MONTALE MTL MONTALE Dezign)
   (Case T-239/13)
   2013/C 207/61
   Language in which the application was lodged: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Ammar Atmeh (Diera-Duba, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: A. Berthet, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sylvie Fretier (Paris, France)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the present action to be admissible;

               —

               Alter the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 February 2013 in Joined Cases R 1482/2011-4 and R 1571/2011-4 and suspend the annulment proceedings against the Community trade mark MONTALE MTL MONTALE Dezign No 003 874 807 submitted on 16 June 2004 by Mr Ammar Atmeh pending a definitive ruling on the application for a declaration of invalidity and for revocation of the trade marks of Ms Fretier pending before the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Figurative mark including the word elements ‘MONTALE MTL MONTALE Dezign’ for goods and services in Class 3 — Community trade mark No 3 874 807

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Sylvie Fretier

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: National figurative mark including the word elements ‘PIERRE MONTALE MONTALE M’ and national figurative mark and international registration including the word elements ‘MTL MONTALE’ for goods in Class 3

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: The application for invalidity is granted

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: The action brought by the applicant is dismissed and the action brought by Sylvie Fretier is declared inadmissible

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Rule 20 of Regulation No 2868/95 and of the principle of sound administration of justice


title: Case T-457/16: Action brought on 16 August 2016 — Aldi Einkauf v EUIPO — Schwamm & Cie. (Le Coq de France)

text:
               3.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 364/28

      Action brought on 16 August 2016 — Aldi Einkauf v EUIPO — Schwamm & Cie. (Le Coq de France)
      (Case T-457/16)
      (2016/C 364/31)
      Language in which the application was lodged: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG (Essen, Germany) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher, C. Fürsen and N. Bertram, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Schwamm & Cie. (Saarbrücken, Germany)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

         Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Le Coq de France’ — Application No 10 882 331

         Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 June 2016 in Case R 1786/2015-4

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to pay the costs.

         Plea in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case T-160/12: Action brought on 10 April 2012 — Adler Modemärkte v OHIM — Blufin (MARINE BLEU)

text:
               23.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/16

         Action brought on 10 April 2012 — Adler Modemärkte v OHIM — Blufin (MARINE BLEU)
   (Case T-160/12)
   2012/C 184/29
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Adler Modemärkte AG (Haibach, Germany) (represented by: J.-C. Plate and R. Kaase, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Blufin SpA (Carpi, Italy)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 February 2012 in Case R 1955/2010-2;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs, including the costs of the appeal proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘MARINE BLEU’ for goods in Classes 18, 24 and 25 — application No 6 505 952

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Blufin

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the Italian and Community trade mark and the Italian and international trade mark registration ‘BLUMARINE’ for goods in Classes 3, 9, 14, 18, 19, 23, 24, 25 and 27

      Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was rejected

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was upheld in part, the application was rejected in part and the case was referred back to the Opposition Division in part

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


title: Case T-272/00: Order of the General Court of 29 January 2013 — Barbini and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Reductions in social security contributions for undertakings in Venice and Chioggia — Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market and imposing the recovery of the aid paid — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               23.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/15

         Order of the General Court of 29 January 2013 — Barbini and Others v Commission
   (Case T-272/00) (1)

   (Action for annulment - State aid - Reductions in social security contributions for undertakings in Venice and Chioggia - Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market and imposing the recovery of the aid paid - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
   2013/C 86/24
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicants: Alfredo Barbini Srl (Murano, Italy); Aureliano Toso Srl (Murano); AVMazzega Srl (Murano); Barovier & Toso vetrerie artistiche riunite Srl (Murano); Carlo Moretti Srl (Murano); Effetre SpA (Resana, Italy); Ferro & Lazzarini Srl (Murano); Formia Srl (Murano); Gino Cenedese & Figlio (Murano); La Murrina (Murano); Mazzuccato International Srl (Murano); Nason & Moretti Srl, (Murano); Tfz Internazionale Srl (Murano); V. Nason & C. Srl (Murano); Venini SpA (Murano); Vetreria de Majo Srl (Murano); and Vetreria LAG Srl (Murano) (represented by: A. Vianello, M. Merola and A. Sodano, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, Agent, and by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Intervener in support of the applicants: Italian Republic (represented by: U. Leanza initially, then by I. Braguglia, then R. Adam and finally I. Bruni, Agents, and by G. Aiello and P. Gentili, avvocati dello Stato)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2000/394/EC of 25 November 1999 on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia by way of relief from social security contributions under Laws Nos 30/1997 and 206/1995 (OJ 2000 L 150, p. 50)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The plea of inadmissibility raised by the European Commission is joined to the main proceedings.

               2.

               The action is dismissed as, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly lacking any foundation in law.

               3.

               Alfredo Barbini Srl, Aureliano Toso Srl, AVMazzega Srl, Barovier & Toso vetrerie artistiche riunite Srl, Carlo Moretti Srl, Effetre SpA, Ferro & Lazzarini Srl, Formia Srl, Gino Cenedese & Figlio, La Murrina, Mazzuccato International Srl, Nason & Moretti Srl, Tfz Internazionale Srl, V. Nason & C. Srl, Venini SpA, Vetreria de Majo Srl, and Vetreria LAG Srl, in addition to bearing their own costs, are to pay the costs incurred by the Commission.

               4.

               The Italian Republic is to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 355, 9.12.2000.


title: Case T-165/13 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 8 May 2013 — Talanton v Commission (Interim relief — Arbitration clause — Contracts entered into under the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) — Eligible costs — Repayment of sums paid — Application for stay of execution — No urgency)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/82

         Order of the President of the General Court of 8 May 2013 — Talanton v Commission
   (Case T-165/13 R)
   (Interim relief - Arbitration clause - Contracts entered into under the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) - Eligible costs - Repayment of sums paid - Application for stay of execution - No urgency)
   2013/C 225/182
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Talanton AE — Simvouleftiki-Ekpaideftiki Etairia Dianomon, Parochis Ipiresion Marketigk kai Dioikisis Epicheiriseon (Talanton SA Business Consulting and Marketing Services) (Athens, Greece) (represented by M. Angelopoulos and K. Damis, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Cordewener and D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   APPLICATION for stay of execution of a number of acts concerning the repayment of sums paid to the applicant under contracts entered into under the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim relief is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


               25.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 272/3

         Composition of the Chambers and attachment of the Judges to Chambers
   (2008/C 272/03)
   By decision of 30 November 2005 (1), the Tribunal decided to sit in three Chambers and as a full Court. By decision of 24 September 2008, for the period from 1 October 2008 to 30 September 2011, the Tribunal elected as Presidents of Chambers Judges H. KANNINEN and S. GERVASONI. By decision of 30 September 2008, for the period from 1 October 2008 to 30 September 2011, the Tribunal attached the Judges to the Chambers as follows:
   First Chamber
   S. GERVASONI, President of Chamber,
   H. KREPPEL and H. TAGARAS, Judges,
   Second Chamber
   H. KANNINEN, President of Chamber,
   I. BORUTA and S. VAN RAEPENBUSCH, Judges,
   Third Chamber, sitting with three Judges
   P. MAHONEY, President of the Tribunal;
   H. KREPPEL, I. BORUTA, H. TAGARAS and S. VAN RAEPENBUSCH, Judges.
   In the Third Chamber, the President will sit, alternately, either with Judges I. BORUTA and H. TAGARAS or with Judges H. KREPPEL and S. VAN RAEPENBUSCH, subject always to connections between cases.

      (1)  OJ 2005 C 322, p. 16.


title: Case C-461/08: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 November 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Don Bosco Onroerend Goed BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Sixth VAT Directive — Interpretation of Articles 13B(g) and 4(3)(a) — Supply of land occupied by a partly demolished building in place of which a new building is to be constructed — VAT Exemption)

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/13

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 November 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Don Bosco Onroerend Goed BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-461/08) (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Interpretation of Articles 13B(g) and 4(3)(a) - Supply of land occupied by a partly demolished building in place of which a new building is to be constructed - VAT Exemption)
   2010/C 24/21
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Don Bosco Onroerend Goed BV

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, The Hague — Interpretation of Article 4(3)(a), read in conjunction with Article 13B(g), of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Taxation of the supply of a building or part of a building and the adjacent ground prior to its first occupation — Supply of a partially demolished building by reason of its replacement by a new building to be constructed

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 13B(g) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, in conjunction with Article 4(3)(a) of the directive must be interpreted as meaning that the exemption from value added tax provided for in Article 13B(g) does not cover the supply of land still occupied by a dilapidated building that is to be demolished and replaced by a new building and whose demolition, paid for by the vendor, had already begun before the actual supply took place. For value added tax purposes, such supply and such demolition form a single transaction, given that, taken as a whole, the aim of the transactions was not to supply the existing building and the land it stands on but land that has not been built on, regardless of how far demolition of the old building had progressed at the moment the land was actually supplied.

      (1)  OJ C 69 of 21.03.2009


               13.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/1

         2010/C 63/01
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 51, 27.2.2010

      Past publications

      OJ C 37, 13.2.2010

      OJ C 24, 30.1.2010

      OJ C 11, 16.1.2010

      OJ C 312, 19.12.2009

      OJ C 297, 5.12.2009

      OJ C 282, 21.11.2009

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


title: Case C-458/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Regeringsrätten lodged on 16 November 2006 — Skatteverket v Gourmet Classic Ltd

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/44

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Regeringsrätten lodged on 16 November 2006 — Skatteverket v Gourmet Classic Ltd
   (Case C-458/06)
   (2006/C 326/89)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   Referring court
   Regeringsrätten
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Skatteverket

      Defendant: Gourmet Classic Ltd
   Question referred
   Is the alcohol contained in cooking wine to be classified as ethyl alcohol as referred to in the first indent of Article 20 of Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages? (1)

      (1)  OJ L 316, 31.10.1992, p. 21.


title: Case T-93/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 June 2008 — Mülhens v OHIM — Spa Monopole (MINERAL SPA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark MINERAL SPA — Earlier national word mark SPA — Relative ground for refusal — Reputation — Unfair advantage taken of the repute of the earlier mark — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               2.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 197/20

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 June 2008 — Mülhens v OHIM — Spa Monopole (MINERAL SPA)
   (Case T-93/06) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark MINERAL SPA - Earlier national word mark SPA - Relative ground for refusal - Reputation - Unfair advantage taken of the repute of the earlier mark - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2008/C 197/34)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Mülhens GmbH & Co. KG (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: T. Schulte-Beckhausen and S. Maaßen, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV (Spa, Belgium) (represented by: L. de Brouwer, É. Cornu, E. de Gryse and D. Moreau, lawyers)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 January 2006 (Case R 825/2004-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV, and Mülhens GmbH & Co. KG.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mülhens GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 131, 3.6.2006.


               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/64

         Removal from the Register of Case T-69/97 (1)

   (2005/C 217/134)

      (Language of the case: Dutch)

   By order of 16 June 2005, the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-69/97, M.V. Diederen v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities.

      (1)  OJ C 142 of 10.5.1997