title: Case C-438/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Hamm by order of that court of 15 November 2000 in the case of Deutscher Handballbund e.V. v Maros Kolpak

text:
C 61/2                  EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    24.2.2001
1.    In a dispute between an Italian national and a company            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
      established under Italian law having its registered office        Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio, Chamber 2b, by
      in Italy arising from a contract of employment concluded          judgment of that court of 28 June and 6 July 2000, in the
      between them which designates Turin as the place of               case of Azienda Agricola Giuseppe Cantarello against
      work, is Munich the place where the employee habitually           Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel mercato agricolo
      carries out his work under the second half-sentence of                  A.I.M.A. and the Ministry for Agricultural Policy
      Article 5(1) of the Brussels Convention where, from the
      outset, the contract of employment is temporarily placed                                  (Case C-451/00)
      on non-active status at the request of the employee and,
      during that period, the employee carries out work, with                                    (2001/C 61/04)
      the consent of the Italian employer, but on the basis of a
      separate contract of employment, for a company estab-
      lished under German law at its registered office in Munich,       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      for the duration of which the Italian employer assumes            European Communities by judgment of the Tribunale Ammini-
      the obligation to provide accommodation in Munich or              strativo Regionale per il Lazio, Chamber 2b, of 28 June and
      to bear the costs of such accommodation and to bear the           6 July 2000, received at the Court Registry on 8 December
      costs of two journeys home each year from Munich to               2000, for a the preliminary ruling in the case of Azienda
      the employee’s native country?                                    Agricola Giuseppe Cantarello against Azienda di Stato per gli
                                                                        interventi nel mereato agricolo A.I.M.A. and the Ministry for
                                                                        Agricultural Policy on the following questions:
2.    If the first question is answered in the negative, may the
      employee, in a legal dispute with her Italian employer            (1) May the provisions contained in Articles 1 and 4 of
      arising from the contract of employment, rely, with                     Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 (1) of 28 December
      reference to the payment of rental costs and travel costs               1992 and Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Regulation
      for the two journeys home each year, on the argument                    (EEC) No 534/93 (2) of 9 March 1993 be interpreted as
      that the court having jurisdiction is that for the place of             meaning that it is possible, in the case of Community
      performance of the obligation in question, pursuant to                  law proceedings and the subsequent compliance of the
      the first half-sentence of Article 5(1) of the Brussels                 Member State to derogate from the time-limits prescribed
      Convention?                                                             for the allocation of quotas and the operation of adjust-
                                                                              ments and levies?
                                                                        If not,
                                                                        (2) Are those provisions of Community law valid, in the light
                                                                              of Article 33 (ex 39) of the Treaty, in so far as they do
                                                                              not provide for derogation from the periods prescribed
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandes-                       for allocation and adjustments in the abovementioned
gericht Hamm by order of that court of 15 November                            case of Community law proceedings?
2000 in the case of Deutscher Handballbund e.V. v Maros
                               Kolpak
                                                                        (1) OJ L 405 of 31.12.1992, p. 1.
                                                                        (2) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 536/93 of 9 March 1993 is
                          (Case C-438/00)                                   meant (OJ L 57 of 10.3.1993, p. 12).
                           (2001/C 61/03)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Oberlandesgericht
(Higher Regional Court) Hamm, Germany, of 15 November
2000, which was received at the Court Registry on 28 Novem-             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van
ber 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Deutscher             Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven by decision of that court
Handballbund e.V. v Maros Kolpak on the following question:             of 1 November 2000 in the case of Kühne & Heitz N.V.
                                                                               against Produktschap voor Pluimvee en Meren
Is it contrary to Article 38(1) of the Europe Agreement
                                                                                (Case C-453/00)
establishing an association between the European Communi-
ties and their Member States, of the one part, and the Slovak
Republic, of the other part — Final Act — if a sports                                            (2001/C 61/05)
association applies to a professional sportsman of Slovak
nationality a rule it has adopted under which clubs may play            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
in championship and cup matches only a limited number of                European Communities by a decision of the College van
players who come from third countries not belonging to the              Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven (Administrative Court for Trade
European Communities?                                                   and Industry) of 1 November 2000, which was received at the
                                                                        Court Registry on 11 December 2000, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                        in the case of Kühne Heitz N.V. v Produktschap voor Pluimvee
                                                                        en Eieren on the following question:


title: Case C-649/11 P: Appeal brought on 19 December 2011 by Cooperativa Vitivinícola Arousana, S. Coop. Galega against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 5 October 2011 in Case T-421/10 Cooperativa Vitivinícola Arousana, S. Coop. Galega v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and María Constantina Sotelo Ares

text:
               25.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 58/5

         Appeal brought on 19 December 2011 by Cooperativa Vitivinícola Arousana, S. Coop. Galega against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 5 October 2011 in Case T-421/10 Cooperativa Vitivinícola Arousana, S. Coop. Galega v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and María Constantina Sotelo Ares
   (Case C-649/11 P)
   2012/C 58/07
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Cooperativa Vitivinícola Arousana, S. Coop. Galega (represented by: I. Temiño Ceniceros, Abogado)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and María Constantina Sotelo Ares

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the appeal admissible;

               —

               set aside in full the judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2011 in Case T-421/10;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               Infringement by the General Court of the duty to state reasons and, in particular, of Article 36 of Protocol (No 3) on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, in conjunction with Article 53 thereof.

               2.

               Infringement of the rights of defence of Cooperativa Vitivinícola Arousana, S. Coop. Galega and of the right to a fair hearing and, in particular, of Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

               3.

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 (1) of 26 February 2009.

      (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-666/11: Order of the President of the Court of 7 January 2013 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (Germany)) — M, N, O, p, Q v Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge

text:
               16.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/11

         Order of the President of the Court of 7 January 2013 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (Germany)) — M, N, O, p, Q v Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge
   (Case C-666/11) (1)

   2013/C 79/19
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 73, 10.3.2012.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 May 2000 in Case T-203/98: Yannis Tzikis v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Disciplinary procedure — Removal from post — Statement of reasons — Actual facts — Manifest error of assessment)

text:
21.10.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 302/25
                                                         COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               Action brought on 14 July 2000 by Gödecke AG against
                                                                              the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
                          of 17 May 2000                                                           (Case T-187/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 302/63)
in Case T-203/98: Yannis Tzikis v Commission of the
                   European Communities (1)                                                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                          An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                          Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
(Officials — Disciplinary procedure — Removal from post
                                                                          European Communities on 14 July 2000 by Gödecke AG,
— Statement of reasons — Actual facts — Manifest error
                                                                          of Freiburg (Federal Republic of Germany), represented by
                            of assessment)
                                                                          Dr Wolfgang Schmid, Rechtsanwalt, of Messrs Bappert, Witz
                                                                          & Selbherr, Freiburg. A further party to the proceedings before
                                                                          the Board of Appeal was Teva Pharmaceutical Industries
                          (2000/C 302/62)                                 Limited, Jerusalem, Israel.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
                    (Language of the case: French)                        (1) annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the
                                                                                defendant of 15 May 2000 in the proceedings registered
                                                                                under No R 501/1999-1;
In Case T-203/98: Yannis Tzikis, an official of the Commission            (2) on the basis of the restoration of the decision of the
of the European Communities, residing at Boortmeerbeek                          Opposition Division of the defendant of 21 June 1999
(Belgium), represented by G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, of the                   (Decision No 387/1999), uphold the opposition entered
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at                      against the application for registration of Community
the offices of Société de Gestion Fiduciaire, 2-4 Rue Beck,                     trade mark No 115 477 ‘ACAMOL’ and refuse regis-
v Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Val-                       tration in respect of that application.
sesia and J. Currall) — application, first, for annulment of
the decision of 27 October 1998 by which the appointing                   Pleas in law and main arguments
authority imposed on the applicant the disciplinary measure
of removal from post without withdrawal or reduction of                   Applicant for the Com-         Teva Pharmaceutical Industries
entitlement to a retirement pension and, second, for compen-              munity trade mark:             Limited
sation — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber),
composed of: V. Tiili, President, and R.M. Moura Ramos and                The Community trade            Verbal mark ‘ACAMOL’ — appli-
P. Mengozzi, Judges; G. Herzig, Administrator, for the Regis-             mark concerned:                cation No 115 477, relating to
trar, has given a judgment on 17 May 2000, in which it:                                                  goods in Class 5 (pharmaceutical
                                                                                products)
                                                                          Proprietor of the right to     The applicant
1.    Annuls the appointing authority’s decision of 27 October            the trade mark or sign
      1998 imposing on the applicant the disciplinary measure of          asserted by way of oppo-
      removal from post without withdrawal or reduction of                sition in the opposition
      entitlement to a retirement pension;                                proceedings:
                                                                          Trade mark or sign             Registered German trade mark
2.    Dismisses the remainder of the action;                              asserted by way of oppo-       ‘AGAROL’, relating to goods in
                                                                          sition in the opposition       Class 2 (laxatives)
                                                                          proceedings:
3.    Orders the Commission to pay all the costs.                         Decision of the Oppo-          Refusal of the application
                                                                          sition Division:
                                                                          Decision of the Board of       Annulment of the decision of the
                                                                          Appeal:                        Opposition Division and rejection
(1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.                                                                                of the opposition
                                                                          Grounds of claim:              Incorrect       application     of
                                                                                Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC)
                                                                                No 40/94


title: Case T-119/12: Order of the General Court of 20 February 2014 — USFSPEI and Loescher v Council

text:
               5.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 135/61

         Order of the General Court of 20 February 2014 — USFSPEI and Loescher v Council
   (Case T-119/12) (1)

   2014/C 135/80
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 165, 9.6.2012.


title: Case C-164/16: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom) made on 21 March 2016 — Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs v Mercedes Benz Financial Services UK Ltd

text:
               30.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 191/16

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom) made on 21 March 2016 — Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs v Mercedes Benz Financial Services UK Ltd
   (Case C-164/16)
   (2016/C 191/20)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs

      Defendant: Mercedes Benz Financial Services UK Ltd

      Questions referred

               1.

               What is the meaning of the words ‘a contract…which provides that in the normal course of events ownership is to pass at the latest upon payment of the final instalment’ in Article 14.2(b) (1)?

               2.

               In particular, in the context of the present case, does the phrase ‘in the normal course of events’ require a tax authority to do no more than to identify the existence of an option to purchase which can be exercised no later than upon payment of the final instalment?

               3.

               Alternatively, does the phrase ‘in the normal course of events’ require the national authority to go further and to determine the economic purpose of the contract?

               4.

               If the answer to (3) is yes:

                           a.

                           Should the interpretation of Article 14.2 be influenced by an analysis of whether the customer is likely to exercise such an option?

                           b.

                           Is the size of the price payable on exercise of the option to purchase relevant for the purposes of determining the economic purpose of the contract?

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

      OJ L 347, p. 1


title: Case C-169/06: Order of the President of the Court of 6 March 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal — United Kingdom) — Northern Foods Plc, The Queen v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Interested Party: The Melton Mowbray Pork Pie Association

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/28

         Order of the President of the Court of 6 March 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal — United Kingdom) — Northern Foods Plc, The Queen v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Interested Party: The Melton Mowbray Pork Pie Association
   (Case C-169/06) (1)

   (2007/C 96/53)

      Language of the case: English

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

      (1)  OJ C 121, 20.5.2006.


title: Case T-895/16: Action brought on 13 December 2016 — Toontrack Music AB v EUIPO (‘SUPERIOR DRUMMER’)

text:
               13.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/27

         Action brought on 13 December 2016 — Toontrack Music AB v EUIPO (‘SUPERIOR DRUMMER’)
   (Case T-895/16)
   (2017/C 046/31)
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Parties

      Applicant: Toontrack Music AB (Umeå, Sweden) (represented by: L.E. Ström, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘SUPERIOR DRUMMER’ — Application for registration No 13 945 019

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 October 2016 in Case R 2438/2015-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings and to bear its own costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b), 7(1)(c) and 65 of No 207/2009.


title: Case T-402/06: Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — Spain v Commission (Cohesion fund — Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 — Environmental infrastructure projects under way in the territory of Catalonia (Spain) — Partial withdrawal of financial assistance — Public works and services contracts — Award criteria — Economically most advantageous tender — Equal treatment — Transparency — Abnormally low offer — Eligibility of expenditure — Determination of the financial corrections — Article H(2) of Annex II of Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 — Proportionality)

text:
               9.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 325/19

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — Spain v Commission
   (Case T-402/06) (1)

   (Cohesion fund - Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 - Environmental infrastructure projects under way in the territory of Catalonia (Spain) - Partial withdrawal of financial assistance - Public works and services contracts - Award criteria - Economically most advantageous tender - Equal treatment - Transparency - Abnormally low offer - Eligibility of expenditure - Determination of the financial corrections - Article H(2) of Annex II of Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 - Proportionality)
   2013/C 325/30
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented: initially by J. M. Rodríguez Cárcamo, then A. Rubio González, lawyers in the State legal service)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by A. Steiblytė and L. Escobar Guerrero, then A. Steiblytė and S. Pardo Quintillán, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 5105 of 20 October 2006 reducing the financial assistance granted by the Cohesion Fund for eight projects under way in the territory of the Autonomous Community of Catalonia (Spain).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.


title: Case C-126/15: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 June 2017 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Excise duty on cigarettes — Directive 2008/118/EC — Chargeability — Place and time duty falls due — Tax markings — Free movement of goods subject to excise duty — Temporal limit on the marketing and sale of packets of cigarettes — Principle of proportionality)

text:
               28.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/3

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 June 2017 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-126/15) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Excise duty on cigarettes - Directive 2008/118/EC - Chargeability - Place and time duty falls due - Tax markings - Free movement of goods subject to excise duty - Temporal limit on the marketing and sale of packets of cigarettes - Principle of proportionality))
   (2017/C 283/03)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: F. Tomat and G. Braga da Cruz, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, N. Silva Vitorino and A. Cunha, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: M. Jacobs and J.-C. Halleux, acting as Agents), Republic of Estonia (represented by: K. Kraavi-Käerdi, acting as Agent), Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by providing that cigarettes released for consumption in a given year may no longer be marketed or sold to the public after the expiry of the time limit laid down in Article 27(a) of the Portaria No 1295/2007 do Ministério das Finanças e da Administração Pública (Decree No 1295/2007 of the Ministry for Finance and Public Administration) of 1 October 2007, in the version applicable to the present action, where there is no increase in the excise duty on those products taking effect the following year, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 9, first paragraph of Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC and the principle of proportionality.

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder.

               3.

               Orders the Portuguese Republic to bear half of its own costs.

               4.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by the Portuguese Republic.

               5.

               Orders the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Estonia and the Republic of Poland to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 155, 11.5.2015.


title: Case C-545/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil d'État (Belgium) by order of that Court of 8 December 2003 in the case of S.A. Belgacom Mobile against Commune de Schaerbeek

text:
C 47/22                EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                           21.2.2004
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          1.     Should Article 49 of the EC Treaty be interpreted as
                                                                                precluding the introduction, by a national or local
                                                                                authority, of a tax on mobile and personal communi-
                                                                                cations infrastructures used to carry on activities covered
This action for annulment is aimed at defending fundamental                     by licences and authorisations?
rights, especially the rights of minors, in the Community legal
order. The Directive, whilst providing for valid rules for
codifying the law governing family reunification for third-              2.     Given that Article 3c of Commission Directive 90/388/
country nationals, nevertheless contains a number of pro-                       EEC of 28 June 1990 (1), as inserted by Commission
visions which are unacceptable having regard to fundamental                     Directive 96/2/EC of 16 January 1996 (2) amending
rights, including the right to family life and the right not to be              Directive 90/388/EEC with regard to mobile and personal
discriminated against, compliance with which must be ensured                    communications, refers to the lifting of ‘all restrictions’,
in the legal order of the European Union pursuant to Article 6                  does that article preclude the introduction, by a national
of the Treaty on European Union.                                                or local authority, of a tax on mobile and personal
                                                                                communications infrastructures used to carry on activities
                                                                                covered by licences and authorisations?
The right to family life as recognised by Article 8 of the
1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and
interpreted in the case-law of the European Court of Human               (1) Commission Directive 90/388/EEC of 28 June 1990 on compe-
Rights can be restricted only for certain reasons and each case              tition in the markets for telecommunications services (OJ L 192,
calls for a balancing of the interests of the third-country                  24.7.1990, p. 10).
nationals concerned and those of the host State. Derogations             (2) Commission Directive 96/2/EEC of 16 January 1996 amending
from the right to family reunification which are expressly                   Directive 90/388/EEC with regard to mobile and personal com-
authorised by the aforementioned provisions of the directive                 munications (OJ L 20, 26.1.1996, p. 59).
go beyond the permitted restrictions and violate the fundamen-
tal right to family life and the right not to be discriminated
against as guaranteed by the ECHR and as they result from the
constitutional traditions common to the Member States of the
EU as general principles of Community law, as established by
Article 6(2) of the Treaty on European Union.
(1) OJ 2003 L 251, p. 12.
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil d’État
                                                                         (Belgium) by order of that Court of 8 December 2003 in
                                                                         the case of S.A. Belgacom Mobile against Commune de
                                                                                Schaerbeek
                                                                                (Case C-545/03)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil d’État
(Belgium) by order of that Court of 8 December 2003 in                                              (2004/C 47/37)
   the case of S.A Mobistar against Commune de Fléron
                         (Case C-544/03)
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                          (2004/C 47/36)                                 European Communities by order of the Conseil d’État (Belgium)
                                                                         of 8 December 2003, received at the Court Registry on
                                                                         23 December 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of S.A.
                                                                         Belgacom Mobile against Commune de Schaerbeek on the
                                                                         following questions:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Conseil d’État (Belgium)            1.     Should Article 49 of the EC Treaty be interpreted as
of 8 December 2003, received at the Court Registry on                           precluding the introduction, by a national or local
23 December 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of S.A                   authority, of a tax on mobile and personal communi-
Mobistar against Commune de Fléron on the following                             cations infrastructures used to carry on activities covered
questions:                                                                      by licences and authorisations?
 ---pagebreak--- 21.2.2004               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                             C 47/23
2.     Given that Article 3c of Commission Directive 90/388/               3.    otherwise arrange for and open the oral procedure;
       EEC of 28 June 1990 (1), as inserted by Commission
       Directive 96/2/EC of 16 January 1996 (2) amending
       Directive 90/388/EEC with regard to mobile and personal             4.    after which, annul the decision of the European Com-
       communications, refers to the lifting of ‘all restrictions’,              mission of 20 or 27 February 2002 to conclude a research
       does that article preclude the introduction, by a national                contract with T. Lefevre, who states that he is the Director
       or local authority, of a tax on mobile and personal                       of the ‘Center for Energy — Environment Research &
       communications infrastructures used to carry on activities                Development’.
       covered by licences and authorisations?
(1) Commission Directive 90/388/EEC of 28 June 1990 on compe-
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
    tition in the markets for telecommunications services (OJ L 192,
    24.7.1990, p. 10).
(2) Commission Directive 96/2/EEC of 16 January 1996 amending
    Directive 90/388/EEC with regard to mobile and personal com-
    munications (OJ L 20, 26.1.1996, p. 59).
                                                                           (a) Procedural irregularity
                                                                           The Court of First Instance dismissed the AIT’s application in
                                                                           Case T-288/02 as manifestly inadmissible, relying on the
                                                                           provisions of Article 111 of its Rules of Procedure. Manifest
                                                                           inadmissibility may be raised only at the start of the proceed-
                                                                           ings and cannot in any case be based on further investigation.
                                                                           If a ground of inadmissibility is revealed by a measure of
                                                                           inquiry, it is then governed by Article 113 of the Rules of
                                                                           Procedure of the Court of First Instance and not by Article 111.
Appeal brought on 22 December 2003 by Asian Institute                      The safeguard in respect of non-manifest inadmissibility means
of Technology (AIT) against the order made on 15 Octo-                     that, in contrast to Article 111, where the cancellation of the
ber 2003 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First                        oral procedure is automatic, such cancellation is within the
Instance of the European Communities in Case T-288/02                      discretionary power of the Court of First Instance in cases of
between Asian Institute of Technology (AIT) and the                        non-manifest inadmissibility. In this case, the Court of First
          Commission of the European Communities                           Instance has made a finding of manifest inadmissibility based
                                                                           on the results of an additional enquiry, thus depriving the
                                                                           party of the guarantee that cancellation of the oral procedure
                         (Case C-547/03 P)                                 is subject to the CFI’s discretion.
                           (2004/C 47/38)
                                                                           (b)   Error of assessment as to admissibility having regard to
                                                                                the fourth subparagraph of Article 230 of the EC Treaty
An appeal against the order made on 15 October 2003 by the                 Since it is understood that the AIT is not the ‘addressee’ of the
Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European               decision to award the contract, the CFI should have applied
Communities in Case T-288/02 between Asian Institute of                    the test in Plaumann, with the flexibility which the Court of
Technology (AIT) and the Commission of the European                        Justice has brought to that case-law in order to give a
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the                 less restrictive interpretation to the second paragraph of
European Communities on 22 December 2003 by Asian                          Article 173 (now the fourth paragraph of Article 230 of
Institute of Technology (AIT), represented by H. Teissier du               the EC Treaty). ‘CEERD/FIHRDS’ to which the Commission
Cros, avocat, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                   awarded the contract, is a competitor of ‘CEERD/AIT’, and
                                                                           even an unfair competitor. The award of the contract to
                                                                           ‘CEERD/FIHRDS’ by the Commission, which has deprived the
                                                                           AIT of the competitive advantages flowing from the fact that
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                the ‘CEERD/AIT’ is one of its departments, adversely and
                                                                           substantially affects it in its competitive position. The contested
                                                                           decision also impairs the AIT’s entitlement to use its name and
1.     set aside the contested order dated 15 October 2003 of              logo ‘CEERD’, a prejudice which distinguishes its situation in
       the Court of First Instance of the European Communities;            relation to all other economic operators. The contested
                                                                           contract concerns the AIT directly and individually because it
                                                                           substantially affects its competitive position, even though it is
2.     refer the case back to the Court of First Instance;                 not a trader.


title: Case T-381/07: Action brought on 27 September 2007 — Italy v Commission

text:
               24.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/39

         Action brought on 27 September 2007 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-381/07)
   (2007/C 283/71)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: P. Gentili, Avvocato dello Stato)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul Memorandum No 007584 of 18 July 2007 of the European Commission, Directorate-General for Regional Policy — Programmes and projects in Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Malta and the Netherlands, concerning payments made by the Commission which differ from the amount requested. Ref. DOCUP Toscana Ob. 2 (No CCI 2000 IT 16 2DO 001);

               —

               annul Memorandum No 009059 of 21 August 2007 of the European Commission, Directorate-General for Regional Policy — Programmes and projects in Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Malta and the Netherlands, concerning certification and the intermediate statement of expenses and claim for payment. Ref. DOCUP Veneto Ob. 2 2000-2006 (No CCI 2000 IT 16 2DO 005);

               —

               annul Memorandum No 009061 of 21 August 2007 of the European Commission, Directorate-General for Regional Policy — Programmes and projects in Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Malta and the Netherlands, concerning payments made by the Commission which differ from the amount requested. Ref. DOCUP Ob. 2 ‘Lazio’ 2000-2006 (No CCI 2000 IT 16 2DO 009);

               —

               annul Memorandum No 009249 of 29 August 2007 of the European Commission, Directorate-General for Regional Policy — Programmes and projects in Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Malta and the Netherlands, concerning payments made by the Commission which differ from the amount requested. Ref. DOCUP Piemonte 2000-2006 (No CCI 2000 IT 16 2DO 007);

               —

               annul Memorandum No 009525 of 6 September 2007 of the European Commission, Directorate-General for Regional Policy — Programmes and projects in Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Malta and the Netherlands, concerning payments made by the Commission which differ from the amount requested. Ref. POR ‘Campania’ 2000-2006 (No CCI 1999 IT 16 1PO 007);

               —

               annul all related and prior acts and, consequently, order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those relied on in Case T-345/05 Italian Republic v Commission
       (1).

      (1)  OJ C 262 of 23.10.2004, p. 55.


title: Case C-369/09 P: Appeal brought on 15 September 2009 by ISD Polska sp. z o. o., Industrial Union of Donbass Corporation, ISD Polska sp. z o. o. (formerly Majątek Hutniczy sp. z o. o.) against the judgment delivered on 1 July 2009 in Joined Cases T-273/06 and T-297/06 ISD Polska and Others v Commission

text:
               19.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 312/14

         Appeal brought on 15 September 2009 by ISD Polska sp. z o. o., Industrial Union of Donbass Corporation, ISD Polska sp. z o. o. (formerly Majątek Hutniczy sp. z o. o.) against the judgment delivered on 1 July 2009 in Joined Cases T-273/06 and T-297/06 ISD Polska and Others v Commission
   (Case C-369/09 P)
   2009/C 312/22
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellants: ISD Polska sp. z o. o., Industrial Union of Donbass Corporation, ISD Polska sp. z o. o. (formerly Majątek Hutniczy sp. z o. o.) (represented by C. Rapin and E. Van den Haute, avocats)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare the appeal admissible;

               —

               set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Eighth Chamber) of 1 July 2009 in Joined Cases T-273/06 and T-297/06;

               —

               grant in their entirety, or in the alternative grant in part, the forms of order sought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-273/06 and T-297/06;

               —

               order the Commission to pay all the costs;

               —

               should the Court of Justice find that there is no need to adjudicate, order the Commission to pay the costs in accordance with Article 69(6) in conjunction with Article 72(a) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellants put forward three grounds of appeal.
   By their first ground of appeal, they challenge the Court of First Instance’s assessment that Protocol No 8 on the restructuring of the Polish steel industry, annexed to the Act of Accession of the Republic of Poland to the European Union, (1) provides in point 6 for the retroactive application of its provisions. The appellants submit that no retroactive effect can be derived from the wording, purpose or scheme of that provision, which merely states that the undertakings listed in Annex I to Protocol No 8 can receive aid, within certain limits, in the period from 1997 to 2003. That provision means, in other words, that the calculation of the aid which could be attributed to the recipient undertakings up to the end of 2003 must take into account retrospectively the amount of aid already allocated, but not retrospectively regard the aid allocated as unlawful. That interpretation is moreover shared by both the Commission and the Council, which, the Commission in a proposal for a decision and the Council in a decision, found that the commitments made in Protocol No 8 had been complied with.
   By their second ground of appeal, the appellants submit that the Court of First Instance erred in law in finding, first, that undertakings in receipt of aid in principle could have a legitimate expectation as to the lawfulness of that aid only if it was granted in compliance with the procedure laid down by Article 88 EC and, second, that the procedures provided for in Protocol No 2 on ECSC products to the Association Agreement of 16 December 1991, (2) by which the contested aid had been brought to the attention of the Commission and the Council, could not give rise to a legitimate expectation on the part of the appellants. It is common ground that no formal notification of the contested aid could take place under Article 88 EC, since the Republic of Poland was not yet a member of the European Union at that time, and that the Commission was indeed informed of the existence of that aid and took the view, following the examination of the Polish restructuring programme and the undertakings’ plans submitted in that context, that they satisfied the requirements of Article 8(4) of Protocol No 2 to the Association Agreement and the conditions laid down in Protocol No 8 to the Act of Accession.
   By their third and last ground of appeal, the appellants rely on an infringement of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (3) and Regulation (EC) No 794/2004. (4) Under those regulations, the fact that the interest rate applicable to the recovery of contested aid is fixed in close cooperation with the Member State concerned does not suffice for that rate to be regarded as an ‘appropriate’ rate within the meaning of Article 14(2) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999. The ‘appropriate’ nature of the interest rate applicable to the recovery of State aid is a substantive concept independent of the procedure which the Commission must follow in the exceptional cases in which it fixes the rate in cooperation with the Member State concerned.

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 236, p. 948.

      (2)  Europe Agreement of 16 December 1991 establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Poland, of the other part (OJ 1993 L 348, p. 2).

      (3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (now Article 88 EC) (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).

      (4)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (OJ 2004 L 140, p. 1).


title: Case C-471/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 July 2017 — Staatliche Porzellan-Manufaktur Meissen GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Meissen Keramik GmbH (Appeal — EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for registration of the figurative mark including the word element ‘meissen’ — Rejection of the opposition — Evidence presented for the first time — Distortion — Genuine use of the earlier trade marks — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 7(3) — Article 8(5) — Link between the trade marks to be compared)

text:
               18.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 309/14

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 July 2017 — Staatliche Porzellan-Manufaktur Meissen GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Meissen Keramik GmbH
   (Case C-471/16 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for registration of the figurative mark including the word element ‘meissen’ - Rejection of the opposition - Evidence presented for the first time - Distortion - Genuine use of the earlier trade marks - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 7(3) - Article 8(5) - Link between the trade marks to be compared))
   (2017/C 309/18)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Staatliche Porzellan-Manufaktur Meissen GmbH (represented by: O. Spuhler and M. Geitz, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: M. Fischer, acting as Agent), Meissen Keramik GmbH (represented by: M. Vohwinkel and K. Gennen, Rechtsanwälte)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Staatliche Porzellan-Manufaktur Meissen GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 454, 5.12. 2016.


title: Case T-204/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 27 September 2006 — Haladjian Frères v Commission (Competition — Article 81 EC — Article 82 EC — Distribution of spare parts — Parallel imports — Complaint — Decision rejecting complaint)

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/43

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 27 September 2006 — Haladjian Frères v Commission
   (Case T-204/03) (1)

   (Competition - Article 81 EC - Article 82 EC - Distribution of spare parts - Parallel imports - Complaint - Decision rejecting complaint)
   (2006/C 294/90)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Haladjian Frères (Sorgues, France) (represented by: N. Coutrelis, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Whelan and O. Beynet, Agents, assisted by D. Waelbroeck, lawyer)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Caterpillar, Inc. (Peoria, Illinois, United States) and Caterpillar Group Services SA (Charleroi, Belgium) (represented by: initially N. Levy, Solicitor, and S. Kingston, Barrister, then N. Levy and T. Graf, lawyer)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of the Commission's decision of 1 April 2003 rejecting the complaint alleging infringements of Articles 81 EC and 82 EC lodged by Haladjian Frères SA against Caterpillar, Inc.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Commission and the interveners.

      (1)  OJ C 200, 23.8.2003.


title: Partial removal from the register in Joined Cases T-320/94 and Others

text:
18.12.1999            EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 366/31
— that Article 60 of the Staff Regulations has been                     Partial removal from the register in Joined Cases T-320/94
     erroneously applied in that the aim of that provision is to                                  and Others (1)
     penalize the production of medical certificates issued
     purely to oblige the patient and not the infringement of a                                 (1999/C 366/67)
     duty of good faith. Since the defendant alleged that the
     applicant had infringed a duty of good faith, it was required
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
     to found its decision solely on Article 86 of the Staff
     Regulations instead of on Article 60.
                                                                        By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Fourth
The applicant submits finally that, by failing to comply with           Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
the Staff Regulations and refusing to assist her in proceedings         Communities has ordered the removal of Cases T-320/94,
against the medical officer, the defendant has infringed                T-323/94, T-324/94, T-332/94, T-333/94, T-344/94,
Article 24 of those Regulations so as to give rise to liability on      T-345/94 and T-351/94 from the list of Joined Cases T-320/94
its part.                                                               and Others: Klaus Harings and Others v Council of the
                                                                        European Union and Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties.
                                                                        (1) OJ No C 351 of 10.12.1994.
Partial removal from the register in Joined Cases T-85/93
                          and Others (1)
                        (1999/C 366/65)
                                                                        Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-363/94 and
                  (Language of the case: German)                                                    Others (1)
By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Fourth                                       (1999/C 366/68)
Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities has ordered the removal                                       (Language of the case: German)
of Cases T-85/93, T-87/93, T-126/93, T-130/93, T-35/94,
T-40/94, T-198/94, T-212/94, T-227/94, T-236/94,                        By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Fourth
T-237/94, T-238/94, T-278/94, T-279/94, T-281/94,                       Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
T-283/94, T-284/94, T-349/94, T-350/94, T-357/94 and                    Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
T-360/94 from the list of Joined Cases T-85/93 and Others:              Joined Cases T-363/94 and Others: Benno and Hans Georg
Helmut Bösl and Others v Council of the European Union and              Theunissen and Others v Council of the European Union and
Commission of the European Communities.                                 Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ Nos C 178 of 18.7.1990, C 34 of 9.2.1991, C 90 of 26.3.1994,     (1) OJ No C 370 of 24.12.1994, C 400 of 31.12.1994, C 54 of
    C 218 of 6.8.1994, C 304 of 29.10.1994 and C 370 of
                                                                            4.3.1995, C 74 of 25.3.1995 and C 119 of 13.5.1995.
    24.12.1994.
Partial removal from the register in Joined Cases T-85/93               Partial removal from the register in Joined Cases T-366/94
                          and Others (1)                                                          and Others (1)
                        (1999/C 366/66)                                                         (1999/C 366/69)
                  (Language of the case: German)                                         (Language of the cases: German)
By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Fourth               By order of 29 September 1999, the President of the Fourth
Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance           Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
of the European Communities has ordered the removal of the              Communities has ordered the removal of Cases T-366/94,
names of the applicants Peter Dalhaus, Klaus Buck, Karl-Heinz           T-3/95, T-14/95, T-120/95 and T-124/95 from the list of
Rohler and Ludger Beckhoff from the list of applicants in Case          cases in Joined Cases T-366/94 and Others: Hilde Diekmeier
T-247/94 - Joined Cases T-85/93 and Others: Helmut Bösl and             and Others v Council of the European Union and Commission
Others v Council of the European Union and Commission of                of the European Communities.
the European Communities.
                                                                        (1) OJ No C 370 of 24.12.1994, No C 54 of 4.3.1995, No C 74 of
(1) OJ No C 233 of 20.8.1994.                                               25.3.1995, No C 174 of 8.7.1995 and No C 208 of 12.8.1995.


title: Case T-252/16: Action brought on 17 May 2016 — Cleversafe v EUIPO (Beyond Scale)

text:
               8.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/23

         Action brought on 17 May 2016 — Cleversafe v EUIPO (Beyond Scale)
   (Case T-252/16)
   (2016/C 287/28)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Cleversafe, Inc. (Chicago, Illinois, États-Unis d'Amérique) (represented by: A. Lingenfelser, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Beyond Scale’ — Application for registration No 13 975 438

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 March 2016 in Case R 2239/2015-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision.

      Plea in law

               —

               The subject mark, as a whole, would not be perceived as a promotional laudatory message having no indication of commercial origin.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) of 21 March 1996 in Case C-39/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Police, La Rochelle): Criminal proceedings against Pierre Goupil (Social legislation relating to road transport - Derogation for refuse vehicles)

text:
22 . 6 . 96           EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 180/7
2 . In areas not covered by Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85,                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
     Member States remain competent to adopt rules on                                        of 26 March 1996
     driving periods.
                                                                       in Case C-3 92/93 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                       the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division,
0 ) OJ No C 392, 31 . 12 . 1994 .                                      Divisional Court ): The Queen v. H. M. Treasury, ex parte:
                                                                                British Telecommunications plc (')
                                                                       (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Interpretation of
                                                                       Directive      90/531/EEC     —     Telecommunications       —
                                                                        Transposition into national law — Obligation to pay
                                                                         compensation in the event of incorrect implementation)
                                                                                96/C 180/ 14 )
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         ( First Chamber)
                       of 21 March 1996
                                                                                (Language of the case: Englisb)
in Case C-39/95 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from the
Tribunal de Police, La Rochelle ): Criminal proceedings
                   against Pierre Goupil f 1 )
(Social legislation relating to road transport — Derogation
                        for refuse vehicles)                           In Case C-3 92/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                           ( 96/C 180/ 13 )                            of the EC Treaty by the High Court of Justice, Queen's
                                                                       Bench Division, Divisional Court, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                       in the proceedings pending before that court between
                (Language of tbe case: Frencb)                         the Queen and H. M. Treasury, ex parte British
                                                                       Telecommunications pic, on the interpretation of
                                                                       Article 8 ( 1 ) of Council Directive 90/531 /EEC of
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be            17 September 1990 on the procurement procedures of
          published in the European Court Reports)                     entities operating in the water, energy, transport and
                                                                       telecommunications sectors ( OJ No L 297, 1990 , p . 1 ) —
                                                                       the Court, composed of G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President,
In Case C-39/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177 of           C. N. Kakouris, D. A. O. Edward and J. -P. Puissochet,
the EC Treaty from the Tribunal de Police ( Local Criminal              Presidents of Chambers , G. F. Mancini, F. A. Schockweiler,
Court ), La Rochelle, for a preliminary ruling in the criminal         J. C. Moitinho de Almeida ( Rapporteur ), C. Gulmann and
proceedings pending before that court against Pierre Goupil            J. L. Murray, Judges; G. Tesauro, Advocate-General ; L.
on the interpretation of Article 4 ( 6 ) of Council Regulation          Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
( EEC ) No 3820/85 of 20 December 1985 on the                           judgment on 26 March 1996 , in which it rules :
harmonization of certain social legislation relating to road
transport ( OJ No L 370, 1985 , p . 1 ) — the Court ( First
Chamber), composed of D. A. O. Edward ( President of the
Chamber ), P. Jann ( Rapporteur ) and L. Sevon, Judges; P.
Léger, Advocate-General; H. von Holstein , Deputy
Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                   1 . It is not open to a Member State, when transposing into
21 March 1996 in which it rules :                                           national law Council Directive 90/531 /EEC of
                                                                            1 7 September 1 990 on the procurement procedures of
                                                                            entities operating in the water, energy, transport and
The words 'vehicles used in connection with . . . refuse                    telecommunications      sectors,    to determine     which
collection and disposal ' in Article 4 (6) of Council                       telecommunications services are to be excluded from its
Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 of20 December 1985 on the                       scope in implementation of Article 8 (1 ), since that
harmonization of certain social legislation relating to road                power is vested in the contracting entities themselves.
transport must be interpreted as covering vehicles used for
the collection of waste of all kinds which is not subject to
more specific rules and for the transportation of such waste
over short distances, within the context of a general service
in the public interest provided directly by the public                  2 . The criterion laid down by Article 8 (1 ) of Directive
authorities or by private undertakings under their                          90/531 , namely that 'other entities are free to offer the
control.                                                                    same services in the same geographical area and under
                                                                            substantially the same conditions ', is to be verified as a
                                                                            matter of law and of fact, having regard in particular to
 (') OJ No C 87, 8 . 4 . 1995 .                                             all the characteristics of the services concerned, the
                                                                            existence of alternative services, price factors, the
                                                                            dominance or otherwise of the contracting entity's
                                                                            position on the market and any legal constraints.


title: Appeal brought on 23 July 1996 by the Council of the European Union against the judgment delivered on 26 June 1996 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-91/95 between L. de Nil and C. Impens and the Council of the European Union (Case C-259/96 P)

text:
No C 269/ 18              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        14 . 9 . 96
2 . For the purposes of Article 119 does 'discrimination                 — uphold the contentions put forward by the European
       based on sex ' include discrimination based on the                    Parliament at first instance, namely that the Court
       employee 's sexual orientation ?                                      should :
3 . For the purpose of Article 119 , does ' discrimination                  — dismiss the application,
       based on sex' include discrimination based on the sex of
       that employee 's partner ?                                           — make an appropriate order as to costs ,
4 . If the answer to question 1 is yes, does an employee, to                     and
       whom such concessions are refused, enjoy a directly
       enforceable community right against his employer ?
                                                                         — as regards the proceedings before the Court of Justice,
                                                                             also make an appropriate order as to costs .
5 . Is such a refusal contrary to the provisions of Council
       Directive 76/207/EEC ( 2 )?
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
6 . Is it open to an employer to justify such refusal if he can
       show ( a ) that the purpose of the concessions in question        — Inadmissibility of the ground of annulment of the Court
       is to confer benefits on married partners or partners in              of First Instance : the ground of annulment based on the
       an equivalent position to married partners and ( b ) that             formal difference between Competitions No PE/LA/91
       relationships between same-sex cohabiting partners                    and No PE/161 /LA was never relied on by the applicant
       have not traditionally been, and are not generally,                   at first instance . It would at least be illogical to prohibit
       regarded by society as equivalent to marriage, rather                 the applicant from putting forward new grounds during
       than on the basis of an economic or organizational                    the proceedings while allowing the Court of First
       reason relating to the employment in question ?                       Instance to do so of its own motion .
(') Council Directive 75/ 117/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the
      approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the     — Absence of an act adversely affecting the official and lack
      application of the principle of equal pay for men and women            of legal interest in bringing the action : the official
      ( OJ No L 45 , 19 . 2 . 1975 , p. 19 ).                                submitted his candidature only for Competition No
( 2 ) Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the                 PE/LA/91 . It would be no less than surprising if a notice
      implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and         of competition for which the potential candiate did not
      women as regards access to employment, vocational training             in fact apply were to be considered to be an act adversely
      and promotion , and working conditions ( Of No L 39 , 14 . 2 .         affecting him . It is hard to understand how, in the
      1976 , p. 40 ).                                                        present case , a competition for which the applicant at
                                                                             first instance did not submit his candidature, although
                                                                             he was fully able to do so since he fulfilled all the
                                                                             requirements for acceptance , could in any way affect his
                                                                             legal situation .
Appeal brought on 22 July 1996 by the European
Parliament against the judgment delivered on 22 May 1996                 — Lack of repercussion of the differences between the two
by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                  notices on the review of Mr Gutierrez Quijano's
European Communities in Case T-140/94 between Enrique                        application or on the selection of the candidates
Gutierrez de Quijano y Llorens and the European                              eventually accepted .
                                 Parliament
                          ( Case C-252/96 P )
                              ( 96/C 269/37 )
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 22 May 1996
by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-140/94 between Enrique                    Appeal brought on 23 July 1996 by the Council of the
Gutierrez de Quijano y Llorens and the European                          European Union against the judgment delivered on 26 June
Parliament was brought before the Court of Justice of the                1996 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance
European Communities on 22 July 1996 by the European                     of the European Communities in Case T-91/95 between
Parliament, represented by Manfred Peter , Head of                       L. de Nil and C. Impens and the Council of the European
Division, and Jose Luis Rufas Quintana , of its Legal Service,                                           Union
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Secretariat                                     ( Case C-259/96 P )
of the European Parliament .
                                                                                ( 96/C 269/38 )
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                         An appeal against the judgment delivered on 26 June 1996
— set aside the judgment in Case T-140/94 Enrique                        by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
        Gutiérrez de Quijano y Llorens v . Parliament (1 996 ),          European Communities in Case T-91 /95 between L. de Nil
 ---pagebreak--- 14. 9 . 96         I EN 1                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 269/ 19
and C. Impens and the Council of the European Union was             — Absence of the conditions necessary in law for liability to
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                      arise and, in the alternative, breach of the principle of
Communities on 23 July 1996 by the Council of the                        proportionality.
European Union , represented by Jean-Paul Jacqué, Diego
Canga Fano and Therese Blanchet, with an address for                (') Case C-412/92 P Parliament v . Meskens [ 1994 ] ECR I ,
service in Luxembourg at the offices of B. Eynard, European              p . 3757 .
Investment Bank .
The appellant claims that the Court should :
— annul the judgment given by the Court of First Instance           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte d'Appello
                                                                    ( Sezione Prima Civile ), Venice, by order of that court of
    on 26 June 1996 in Case T-91 /95 de Nil and Impens v.
                                                                    9 May 1996, in the case of Conserchimica SRL v.
    Council of the European Union,                                             Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato
— give judgment upholding the claims put forward by the                                       Case C-261 /96 )
    Council at first instance, that is to say :                                                ( 96/C 269/39 )
    — dismiss the application and the claims for                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
        compensation therein ,                                      European Communities by order of the Corte d'Appello
                                                                    ( Sezione Prima Civile ) ( Court of Appeal, first Civil
    — order the applicants before the Court of First                Division ), Venice, of 9 May 1 996, which was received at the
        Instance to pay the costs of those proceedings,             Court Registry on 24 July 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in
                                                                    the case of Conserchimica SRL v. Amministrazione delle
— make an appropriate order as regards the costs before             Finanze dello Stato on the following question :
    the Court of Justice.
                                                                    Does Article 2 of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1 697/79 ( 1 )
                                                                    of 24 July 1 979 , which prescribes a three-year period for the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 recovery of duties not collected , also apply to situations
                                                                    where the conditions were satisfied before 1 July 1980, the
— Infringement of Article 176 of the EC Treaty : the                date on which that Regulation entered into force pursuant
    approach adopted by the Court of First Instance,                to Article 11 thereof ?
    consisting, on the one hand, in noting that the
    Community judicature may not determine the measures             (M OJ No L 197, 3 . 8 . 1979 , p . 1 .
    required to comply with a judgment and, on the other
    hand , in specifying after the event the measures that it
    considers the Council could have provided for, is
    contradictory in law . That approach affectively negates
    the case-law on the institutions ' discretion to determine
    the measures necessary to comply with a judgment.               Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht
                                                                    Aachen — 13th Chamber — by order of that court of
                                                                    24 July 1996 in the case of Sema Sürül v. Bundesanstalt für
— Infringement of Article 30 of the Staff Regulations : the
    Council organized a new competition, B/228a , in                                         Arbeit, Nürnberg
    accordance with the solution suggested in the judgment                                   ( Case C-262/96 )
    in Parliament v. Meskens ('), and the Court of First                                        ( 96/C 269/40 )
    Instance commits an error of law when it regards
    Competition B/228a as re-opening Competition                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    B/228 .
                                                                     European Communities by order of the Thirteenth
                                                                     Chamber of the Sozialgericht ( Social Court ) Aachen of
— Breach of the principle of equal treatment: reclassifying          24 July 1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on
    the successful candidates in Competition B/228a with             26 July 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Sema
    effect from the same date as those in Competition B/228 ,        Sürül v. Bundesanstalt für Arbeit Nürnberg ( Federal
    as required by the contested judgment, would amount to           Employment Office, Nuremberg ) on the following
    treating different situations in an identical manner .           questions :
— Infringement       of   Article  45     (2)   of   the  Staff      1 . Does a Turkish national living in Germany who comes
    Regulations .                                                         within the personal scope of Article 2 of Decision
                                                                          No 3/80 of 19 September 1980 of the Association
— Infringement of Article 48 ( 2 ) of the Rules of Procedure :            Council set up pursuant to the Agreement establishing
    the Court of First Instance committed an error of law as              an Association between the European Economic
    regards the subsequent promotions of the successful                   Community and Turkey (' Decision No 3/80 '), and who
    candidates in Competiton B/228 , in that it based its                 possesses merely an Aufenthaltsbewilligung, have the
    judgment on the factual position on the date when the                 right, deriving directly from Article 3 in conjunction
    judgment was given instead of the date when the                       with Article 4 ( 1 ) ( h ) of Decision No 3/80 , to German
    application was made .                                                child benefit, in such a way that that right is conditional


title: Case T-713/14: Action brought on 10 October 2014 — IPSO v ECB

text:
               1.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 431/39

         Action brought on 10 October 2014 — IPSO v ECB
   (Case T-713/14)
   (2014/C 431/62)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: International and European Public Services Organisation in the Federal Republic of Germany (IPSO) (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Central Bank

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               Annul the ECB Executive Board’s decision of 30 May 2014, pronounced on 16 July 2014, to fix at two years the maximum length of certain contracts for temporary staff performing secretarial and administrative roles;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay compensation for non-pecuniary damage estimated ex aequo et bono at EUR 15  000;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay all the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging, on the one hand, a breach of the applicant’s right to information and consultation as guaranteed by Article 27 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Directive 2002/14 (1) and defined and implemented by the framework agreement on recognition, sharing of information and consultation and the ad hoc agreement of January 2014 establishing the working group on temporary staff, concluded between the ECB and IPSO, and, on the other hand, a breach of those agreements.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a breach of the right to good administration and, in particular, of the right to be heard and of the right of access to information, procedural rights guaranteed by Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

      (1)  Directive 2002/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community — Joint declaration of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on employee representation (OJ 2002 L 80, p. 29).


title: Case C-525/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 2 December 2008 — Sylvia Bienek v Condor Flugdienst GmbH

text:
               7.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/8

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 2 December 2008 — Sylvia Bienek v Condor Flugdienst GmbH
   (Case C-525/08)
   (2009/C 55/11)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesgerichtshof
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Sylvia Bienek

      Defendant: Condor Flugdienst GmbH
   Questions referred

               1.

               Does a change in reservation to another flight constitute a situation covered by Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (1)?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative:
               Must that provision also be applied to a change in reservation which was not instigated by the air carrier, but by the tour operator alone?

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.


title: Case F-47/12: Action brought on 18 June 2012 — ZZ v EMA

text:
               28.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 227/37

         Action brought on 18 June 2012 — ZZ v EMA
   (Case F-47/12)
   2012/C 227/62
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, É. Marchal and S. Orlandi, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Medicines Agency

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision of the European Medicines Agency not to recognise the applicant’s permanent invalidity and not to award him an invalidity allowance.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the European Medicines Agency of 15 September 2011 not to award the applicant an invalidity allowance because of his total permanent invalidity preventing him from performing the duties corresponding to a post in his function group and his grade;

               —

               so far as necessary, annul the decision of 16 January 2012 rejecting his complaint;

               —

               order the European Medicines Agency to pay the costs.


title: Case C-139/03: Action brought on 27 March 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany

text:
C 146/24               EN                      Official Journal of the European Union                                           21.6.2003
Action brought on 26 March 2003 by the Commission of                   Pleas in law and main arguments
the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain
                                                                       Article 2 of Regulation No (EEC) 2092/91 prohibits the use of
                         (Case C-135/03)                               derivatives of the term designating organic agricultural
                                                                       methods in any of the official languages of the European
                                                                       Community for products which have not been obtained by
                         (2003/C 146/39)                               means of organic production methods. Accordingly, use of the
                                                                       term ‘bio’, cited expressly in Article 2 as an example of a
                                                                       derived term indicating organic agriculture, is prohibited.
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before              National legislation which allows the use of the term ‘bio’ in
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 26 March           the labelling, advertising material or commercial documents
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,                    for a product which has not been manufactured in accordance
represented by Gérard Berscheid, Legal Adviser, and Sara Pardo         with Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91, such as Real Decreto
Quintillán, of its Legal Service, with an address for service in       (Royal Decree) 1852/1993 following the amendments inserted
Luxembourg.                                                            by Real Decreto 506/2001, infringes Regulation (EEC)
                                                                       No 2092/91.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                       Such national legislation also infringes Article 2(1)(a)(i) of
                                                                       Directive 2000/13/EC, according to which the labelling and
—    Declare that:                                                     methods used must not be such as could mislead the purchaser,
                                                                       particularly as to the characteristics of the foodstuff and, in
     —    by maintaining in its domestic legal system and in           particular, as to its nature, identity, properties, composition,
          current usage the term ‘bio’, on its own or in               quantity, durability, origin or provenance, method of manufac-
          combination with other terms, for products which             ture or production.
          have not been obtained in accordance with organic
          production methods, thereby infringing Article 2 in
          conjunction with Article 5 of Council Regulation             (1 ) OJ 1991 L 198, p. 1.
          (EEC) No 2092/91 ( 1) of 24 June 1991 on organic             (2 ) Council Regulation (EC) No 1935/95 of 22 June 1995 amending
                                                                            Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 on organic production of agricul-
          production of agricultural products and indications               tural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural
          referring thereto on agricultural products and food-              products and foodstuffs OJ 1995 L 186, p. 1.
          stuffs, as amended by Regulations (EC) No 1935/              (3 ) Council Regulation (EC) No 1804/1999 of 19 July 1999 sup-
          95 (2) and (EC) No 1804/1999 (3);by failing to adopt              plementing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 on organic production
          the necessary measures to prevent misleading use of               of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on
          that word, thereby infringing Article 2 in conjunc-               agricultural products and foodstuffs to include livestock pro-
          tion with Article 10a of the abovementioned                       duction OJ 1999 L 222, p. 1.
          amended regulation; and by failing to adopt                  (4 ) OJ 2000 L 109, p. 29.
          measures to prevent purchasers from being misled
          as to the method of manufacture or production
          of foodstuffs, thereby infringing Article 2 of the
          abovementioned amended regulation in conjunction
          with Article 2(1)(a)(i) of Directive 2000/13/EC of
          the European Parliament and of the Council of
          20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws
          of the Member States relating to the labelling,              Action brought on 27 March 2003 by the Commission of
          presentation and advertising of foodstuffs ( 4); and         the European Communities against the Federal Republic
                                                                                of Germany
     —    by maintaining in the Comunidad Foral de Navarra,
          contrary to the same provisions, use of the term                                       (Case C-139/03)
          ‘bio’, on its own or in combination with other terms,
          for dairy products in respect of which that term has
          been customarily and continuously used when they                                       (2003/C 146/40)
          have not been obtained in accordance with organic
          production methods,
                                                                       An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
     the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                       brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
     under the abovementioned regulation and directive, in
                                                                       ties on 27 March 2003 by the Commission of the European
     particular the provisions thereof as indicated above;
                                                                       Communities, represented by Josef Christian Schieferer and
                                                                       Hans Støvlbæk, of its Legal Service, with an address for service
—    order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.                      in Luxembourg.
 ---pagebreak--- 21.6.2003              EN                      Official Journal of the European Union                                        C 146/25
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            Pleas in law and principal arguments
1.    declare that, by failing to adopt the necessary laws,
      regulations and administrative provisions to implement           The period prescribed for implementing the directive ended
      Commission Directive 2000/38/EC (1) of 5 June 2000               on 31 July 2001.
      amending Chapter Va (Pharmacovigilance) of Council
      Directive 75/319/EEC on the approximation of pro-
      visions laid down by law, regulation or administrative           (1 ) OJ L 193, 29.7.2000, p. 75.
      action relating to medicinal products and/or to notify the       (2 ) OJ L 195, 29.7.1980, p. 35.
      Commission of those provisions, the Federal Republic of
      Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
      directive;
2.    order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
                                                                       Action brought on 31 March 2003 by the Commission of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain
The time-limit for implementing the directive expired on                                        (Case C-142/03)
5 December 2001.
                                                                                (2003/C 146/42)
( 1) OJ L 139 of 10.6.2000, p. 28.
                                                                       An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
                                                                       the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 31 March
                                                                       2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                       represented by Fernando Castillo de la Torre and Niels Bertil
                                                                       Rasmusen, members of its Legal Service, with an address for
Action brought on 28 March 2003 by the Commission                      service in Luxembourg.
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                              Sweden
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
                         (Case C-141/03)
                                                                       —     declare that the Kingdom of Spain has infringed Article 91
                                                                             of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December
                         (2003/C 146/41)                                     1993 on the Community trade mark (1) by having
                                                                             failed to communicate to the Commission the list of
                                                                             Community trade mark courts;
An action against the Kingdom of Sweden was brought before             —     order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 28 March
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by P. Hellström and J.M. Flett, acting as Agents,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
The Commission claims that the Court should:
                                                                       The Member States are under an obligation to designate,
                                                                       within three years following entry into force of the regulation,
—     Declare that by failing to adopt the laws and other              ‘Community trade mark courts’ and to communicate to the
      provisions necessary to implement Commission Directive           Commission their names and their territorial jurisdiction. That
      2000/52/EC ( 1) of 26 July 2000 amending Directive 80/           information should have been communicated by 15 March
      723/EEC (2) on the transparency of financial relations           1997 at the latest.
      between Member States and public undertakings or, in
      any event, by failing to inform the Commission thereof,
      the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                       (1 ) OJ L 11 of 14.1.1994, p. 1.
      under the directive, and
—     Order the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.