title: Case T-254/99: Action brought on 24 October 1999 by Società Maja s.r.l. against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 34/24               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           5.2.2000
Action brought on 24 October 1999 by Società Maja s.r.l.                 — Improper examination of the case and misuse of powers.
    against Commission of the European Communities                            According to the applicant, the facts have clearly been
                                                                              distorted, essentially as a result of defective and incorrect
                                                                              examination of the case.
                        (Case T-254/99)
                                                                         — Breach of the principle of legal certainty and infringement
                         (2000/C 34/46)                                       of Articles 38 and 44 of Regulation No 4028/86.
                                                                         — Infringement of the obligation to state reasons and of
                  (Language of the case: Italian)                             essential procedural requirements. The opinion given by
                                                                              the Fisheries Management Committee was never disclosed
                                                                              to the applicant.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance on
24 October 1999 by Società Maja s.r.l., represented by Paolo
Piva, of the Venice Bar, and Guy Arendt, of the Luxembourg               (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988,
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the latter’s               laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC)
                                                                             No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the
chambers, 7 Val Ste Croix.                                                   different Structural Funds between themselves and with the
                                                                             operations of the European Investment Bank and the other
                                                                             existing financial instruments (OJ 1988 L 374, P. 1).
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:
                                                                         (2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4028/86 of 18 December 1986 on
                                                                             Community measures to improve and adapt structures in the
— Annul the decision of 5 August 1999 cancelling the                         fisheries and aquaculture sector (OJ 1986 L 376, p. 7).
    contribution granted to Ca’Pasta S.r.l. by Commission                (3) OJ 1997 C 387, p. 23.
    decision C(91)654/97 of 29 April 1991;
— Order the defendant to pay the costs.
Contentions and principal arguments adduced in support
These proceedings relate to the grant of aid to the applicant            Action brought on 25 October 1999 by Makro Zelfbe-
company to encourage structural improvements in the fishing              dieningsgroothandel C.V. against the Commission of the
sector and aquaculture. With a view to modernising an                                          European Communities
aquaculture unit at Contarina (Veneto), the applicant applied
for and obtained a Community contribution of
ITL 942 300 004, representing 40 % of the permitted expendi-                                        (Case T-258/99)
ture. Following an administrative check, involving Commission
representatives, it was discovered that the undertaking had                                          (2000/C 34/47)
been transferred without prior authorisation, the latter being
deemed necessary under Article 24 of Regulation
No 4253/88 (1). After completion of the procedure under
Article 44 of Regulation No 4028/86 (2) the Head of Unit of                                   (Language of the case: Dutch)
Directorate General XIV adopted the contested measure,
confirming ‘continuation of the internal procedure with a view           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
to cancellation of the contribution and recovery of the amount           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
disbursed’. An action was brought against that decision,                 European Communities on 25 October 1999 by Makro Zelf-
namely Case T-274/97 Ca’Pasta v Commission (3). An order                 bedieningsgroothandel C.V., established in Amsterdam
was made dismissing the action as inadmissible.                          (Netherlands), represented by I.G.F. Cath and K.J. Tattersall, of
                                                                         the Amsterdam Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
This action is directed against the final decision whereby the           at the Chambers of L. Dupong, 4-6 Rue de la Boucherie.
defendant brought the administrative procedure to a close.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
The contentions and principal arguments adduced in support
are the same as those put forward in the abovementioned Case             (a) annul, wholly or in part, the Commission’s decision of
T-274/97.                                                                     20 July 1999 (C(1999) 2539 final) (1) concerning State aid
                                                                              granted by the Netherlands to 633 service stations in the
                                                                              region bordering Germany, at least in so far as it concerns
The following claims are made, in particular:                                 the applicant, and, in so far as may be necessary, order
                                                                              such detailed arrangements and measures to be adopted as
— Breach of the principle of collegiality.                                    the Court shall think fit;


title: Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 18 October 2001 in Case C-241/00 P: Kish Glass Co. Ltd v Commission of the European Communities and Pilkington United Kingdom Ltd (Appeal — Competition — Dominant position — Market in float glass — Rights of the complainant — Appeal manifestly unfounded)

text:
C 3/12                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       5.1.2002
                   ORDER OF THE COURT                                    Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger
                                                                         Verwaltungssenat of the Land Vorarlberg by orders of
                                                                         4 September 2001, 10 September 2001 and 11 September
                                                                         2001 in the appeals brought by Kurt Beck, Christian Kröll
                       (Fourth Chamber)                                                        and Manfred Laaber
                      of 18 October 2001                                           (Cases C-339/01, C-343/01 and C-357/01)
in Case C-241/00 P: Kish Glass Co. Ltd v Commission                                               (2002/C 3/17)
of the European Communities and Pilkington United
                         Kingdom Ltd (1)
(Appeal — Competition — Dominant position — Market in
float glass — Rights of the complainant — Appeal mani-                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                        festly unfounded)                                European Communities by orders of 4 September 2001,
                                                                         10 September 2001 and 11 September 2001 by the Unabhän-
                                                                         giger Verwaltungssenat of the Land Vorarlberg (Independent
                                                                         Administrative Chamber of the Land Vorarlberg), which were
                          (2002/C 3/16)                                  received at the Court Registry on 10 September 2001
                                                                         (C-339/01), 12 September 2001 (C-343/01) and on 20 Sep-
                                                                         tember 2001 (C-357/01), for a preliminary ruling in the
                  (Language of the case: English)                        appeals brought by Kurt Beck, Christian Kröll and Manfred
                                                                         Laaber on the following questions:
                                                                         1.   Does Article 2(1)(b) of Council Directive 79/112/EEC (1)
                                                                              of 18 December 1978 on the approximation of the
                                                                              laws of the Member States relating to the labelling,
In Case C-241/00 P: Kish Glass Co. Ltd, established in Dublin                 presentation and advertising of foodstuffs for sale to
(Ireland), represented by P. Watson BL and M. Byrne, Solicitor,               the ultimate consumer (now consolidated in European
appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of                 Parliament and Council Directive 2000/13/EC of
the European Communities (Fourth Chamber) in Case T-65/96                     20 March 2000, OJ 2000 L 109, p. 29; hereinafter
Kish Glass v Commission [2000] ECR II-1885 seeking to have                    ‘the labelling Directive’), under which — subject to
that judgment set aside and the forms of order sought by the                  Community provisions applicable to natural mineral
applicant at first instance granted, the other parties to the                 waters and to foodstuffs for particular nutritional uses,
proceedings being: Commission of the European Communities                     the labelling and methods used may not attribute to any
(Agent: R. Lyal, assisted and by N. Khan) and Pilkington United               foodstuff the property of preventing, treating or curing a
Kingdom Ltd, established in Saint Helens, Merseyside (United                  human disease, or suggest that it possesses such proper-
Kingdom), represented by J. Kallaugher — the Court (Fourth                    ties, preclude national legislation which makes it an
Chamber), composed of: S. von Bahr, President of the Chamb-                   offence when marketing foodstuffs:
er, A. La Pergola and C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur),
Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
given an order on 18 October 2001, in which it:                               (a)   to refer to physiological or pharmacological effects,
                                                                                in particular those which preserve youthfulness,
                                                                                inhibit signs of ageing, promote slimming or main-
                                                                                tain health, or to create the impression of any such
1.    Dismisses the appeal;                                                         effect;
2.    Orders Kish Glass Co. Ltd to pay the costs.                             (b) to refer to case histories, recommendations made by
                                                                                doctors or medical experts’ reports;
(1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.                                                    (c)   to use health-related, pictorial or stylised represen-
                                                                                tations of organs of the human body, pictures
                                                                                of members of the health-care professions or of
                                                                                sanatoria or other pictures or illustrations referring
                                                                                to health-care activities?


title: Case T-278/03: Order of the Court of First Instance of  27 January 2006  — Van Mannekus v Council (Dumping — Imports of magnesium oxide originating in China — Amendment of anti-dumping measures instituted earlier — Action for annulment — Objection of inadmissibility)

text:
               8.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/28

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 27 January 2006 — Van Mannekus v Council
   (Case T-278/03) (1)

   (Dumping - Imports of magnesium oxide originating in China - Amendment of anti-dumping measures instituted earlier - Action for annulment - Objection of inadmissibility)
   (2006/C 86/55)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Van Mannekus & Co. BV (Schiedam, Netherlands) (represented by: H. Bleier, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Marquardt, Agent, assisted by G. Berrisch, Agent)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: T. Scharf and K. Talaber Ricz, Agents)
   Application for
   annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 985/2003 of 5 June 2003 amending the anti-dumping measures imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 1334/1999 on imports of magnesium oxide originating in the People's Republic of China (OJ 2003 L 143, p. 1)
   Operative part of the Order

               1.

               The application is dismissed;

               2.

               The applicant shall bear its own costs and those of the Council;

               3.

               The Commission shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 264, 1.11.2003.


title: Case C-131/08 P: Appeal brought on 1 April 2008 by Dorel Juvenile Group, Inc. against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 24 January 2008 in Case T-88/06, Dorel Juvenile Group, Inc. v Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Mark and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
               21.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 158/10

         Appeal brought on 1 April 2008 by Dorel Juvenile Group, Inc. against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 24 January 2008 in Case T-88/06, Dorel Juvenile Group, Inc. v Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Mark and Designs) (OHIM)
   (Case C-131/08 P)
   (2008/C 158/14)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Appellant: Dorel Juvenile Group, Inc. (represented by: Dr. G. Simon, Rechtsanwältin)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   Form of order sought
   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 24 January 2008, Case T-88/06;

               —

               annul the Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 11 January 2006, Case R 616/2004-2 and

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The appellant submits that the CFI's assessment of the conditions for registration of a trademark is too restrictive. The appellant argues that the CFI assessed the character of the term ‘SAFETY 1st’ by means of a separate analysis of the element ‘1st’ and based its judgment on the presumption that as the element ‘1st’ was devoid of a distinctive character it cannot acquire such character when combined with the trademark element ‘SAFETY’. According to the appellant the CFI should have assessed the distinctive character of the mark on the overall perception of the wording ‘SAFETY 1st’ by the average consumer. The splitting by the Court of the trademark ‘SAFETY 1st’ into its component parts does not reflect the view and approach adopted by consumers.
   The contested judgment relies on a criterion according to which the expression safety first is used to designate the goods covered by the mark applied for ‘as information relating to a quality or characteristic of the goods’. The appellant submits that that criterion is relevant in the context of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94 but it is not the yardstick against which Article 7(1)(b) thereof should be judged. Therefore, the Court based its view that the sign in question fell within the scope of Article 7(1)(b) on the fat that it did not satisfy the criteria for protection governed by Article 7(1)(c).
   Finally the appellant submits that the CFI also ignored the fact that Article 12(b) of Regulation No 40/94 (1) constitutes a corrective to the interpretation of Article 7(1)(b).

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ L 11).


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 5 October 1999 in Case C-308/95: Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission of the European Communities (European Regional Development Fund — Projects co-financed by the ERDF — Closure decision)

text:
C 6/4                   EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           8.1.2000
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     M. Dı́az-Llanos La Roche and C. Gómez de la Cruz) —
                                                                           application for the partial annulment of Commission Decision
                         (Sixth Chamber)                                   97/333/EC of 23 April 1997 on the clearance of the accounts
                                                                           presented by the Member States in respect of the expenditure
                        of 5 October 1999                                  for 1993 of the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural
                                                                           Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 1997 L 139, p. 30)
in Case C-308/95: Kingdom of the Netherlands v Com-                        — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: P.J.G. Kapteyn,
          mission of the European Communities (1)                          President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch and J.L. Murray (Rappor-
                                                                           teur), Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; H. von Holstein,
(European Regional Development Fund — Projects co-                         Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 5 October 1999,
          financed by the ERDF — Closure decision)                         in which it:
                           (2000/C 6/06)                                   1. Annuls Commission Decision 97/333/EC of 23 April 1997
                                                                               on the clearance of the accounts presented by the Member States
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)                              in respect of the expenditure for 1993 of the Guarantee Section
                                                                               of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund
                                                                               (EAGGF) to the extent to which it failed to charge definitively to
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published         the EAGGF the sum of ESP 58 804 012 in respect of financial
                   in the European Court Reports)                              compensation advanced by the Kingdom of Spain in respect of
                                                                               processing of citrus fruit;
In Case C-308/95: Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agents:
J.S. van den Oosterkamp and M.A. Fierstra) v Commission of                 2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;
the European Communities (Agents: E. Mennens and P. Oliver)
— application for annulment of the Commission’s letter dated               3. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
28 July 1995 on the closure of projects co-financed by the
European Regional Development Fund — the Court (Sixth
Chamber), composed of: P.J.G. Kapteyn, President of the                    (1) OJ C 271 of 6.9.1997.
Chamber, G. Hirsch, J.L. Murray (Rapporteur), H. Ragnemalm
and R. Schintgen, Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate General;
L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 5 October 1999, in which it:
1. Dismisses the application as inadmissible;
2. Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(1) OJ No C 299 of 11.11.1995.
                                                                                of 5 October 1999
                                                                           in Case C-251/97: French Republic v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                           (Article 92 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article
                         (Sixth Chamber)                                   87 EC) — Concept of aid — Relief on social security
                                                                           contributions in consideration for the costs arising for
                        of 5 October 1999                                  undertakings from collective agreements concerning the
                                                                                reorganisation and reduction of working time)
in Case C-240/97: Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the
                   European Communities (1)
                                                                                (2000/C 6/08)
(EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — 1993 — Export
refunds for butter, beef and veal — Aid for processing of
                            citrus fruit)                                                       (Language of the case: French)
                           (2000/C 6/07)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)                                             in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     In Case C-251/97: French Republic (Agents: K. Rispal-Bellanger
                   in the European Court Reports)                          and G. Mignot) v Commission of the European Communities
                                                                           (Agent: G. Rozet) — application for annulment of Commission
In Case C-240/97: Kingdom of Spain (Agent: S. Ortiz Vaamon-                Decision 97/811/EC of 9 April 1997 concerning aid granted
de) v Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                      by France to the textile, clothing, leather and footwear


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) of 20 June 1996 in Case C-121/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof): VOBIS Microcomputer AG v. Oberfinanzdirektion München (Common Customs Tariff - Tariff headings - Basic module for the assembly of a data-processing machine - Classification in the combined nomenclature)

text:
9 . 11 . 96           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 336/ 1
                                                                  I
                                                           (Information)
                                              COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                        COURT OF JUSTICE
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                 sale of shares and other securities by a trustee in the course
                        ( Fifth Chamber )                            of the management of the assets of a charitable trust.
                       of 20 June 1996                               (') OJ No C 275 , 1 . 10 . 1994 .
in Case C-155/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling made           ( 2 ) OJ No L 145 , 1977, p . 1 .
by the Value-added Tax Tribunal ): Wellcome Trust Ltd v.
            Commissioners of Customs & Excise (')
   (Sixth VAT Directive — Concept of economic activity)
                          ( 96/C 336/01 )
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( First Chamber )
                                                                                of 20 June 1996
                (Language of the case: English)                      in Case C-121 /95 ( reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                     from the Bundesfinanzhof): VOBIS Microcomputer AG v.
                                                                                Oberfinanzdirektion München ( 1 )
In Case C-155/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177           (Common Customs Tariff — Tariff headings — Basic
of the EC Treaty by the Value-added Tax Tribunal , London,           module for the assembly of a data-processing machine —
                                                                              Classification in the combined nomenclature)
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before
that tribunal between Wellcome Trust Ltd and the                                                ( 96/C 336/02 )
Commissioners of Customs & Excise — on the
interpretation of the sixth Council Directive ( 77/388/EEC )                         (Language of the case: German)
of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the
Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common                     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
system of value-added tax : uniform basis of assessment ( 2 )                  published in the European Court Reports)
— the Court ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of: D. A. O.
Edward, President of the Chamber, J. -P. Puissochet, J. C.           In Case C-121 /95 : reference to the Court pursuant to
Moitinho de Almeida ( Rapporteur ), C. Gulmann and P.                 Article 177 of the EC Treaty by the Bundesfinanzhof
Jann, Judges; C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General ; L. Hewlett,              ( Federal Finance Court ) for a preliminary ruling in the
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on             proceedings pending before that court between VOBIS
20 June 1996 , the operative part of which is as follows :            Microcomputer AG and Oberfinanzdirektion München —
                                                                      on the interpretation of the combined nomenclature of the
                                                                      Common Customs Tariff in the version annexed to
                                                                      Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 2505/92 of 14 July 1992
 The concept of economic activities, within the meaning of            amending Annexes I and II to Council Regulation ( EEC )
Article 4 (2) of the sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of          No 2658 /87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and
 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the                  on the Common Customs Tariff ( 2 ) — the Court ( First
 Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common                    Chamber ), composed of: D. A. O. Edward ( Rapporteur ),
system of value-added tax: uniform basis ofassessment, is to          President of the Chamber, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges;
 be interpreted as not including an activity, such as that at         C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General ; R. Grass, Registrar, has
 issue in the main proceedings, consisting in the purchase and        given a judgment on 20 June 1996 , in which it rules :
 ---pagebreak--- No C 336/2              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                       9 . 11 . 96
On a proper construction of the combined nomenclature of              2 . Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
the Common Customs Tariff, in the version annexed to
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2505/92 of 14 July 1 992               (') OJ No C 229 of 2 . 9 . 1995 .
amending Annexes I and II to Council Regulation (EEC)                 ( 2 ) OJ No L 163 , 1989 , p . 32 .
No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and             (■') OJ No L 203 , 1989 , p . 50 .
on the Common Customs Tariff, a basic module for the
assembly of a data-processing machine, consisting of a
housing essentially containing two disk drives, is to be
classified, pursuant to General Rule 3 (b) for the
interpretation of the combined nomenclature of the
Common Customs Tariff, under subheading 8471 93 59 as
a 'storage unit', on the basis of the drives it contains.                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( Fifth Chamber )
(') OJ No C 159 , 24 . 6 . 1995 .
                                                                                of 27 June 1996
( 2 ) OJ No L 267, 1992 , p . 1 .
                                                                      in Case C-107/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                      from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden ): P. H. Asscher v.
                                                                                Staatssecretaris van Financiën (')
                                                                       (Article 52 of the EC Treaty — Requirement of equal
                                                                                treatment — Income tax on non-residents)
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                            ( 96/C 336/04 )
                         ( Fifth Chamber )
                         of 20 June 1996                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
       in Case C-237/95 : Commission of the European
               Communities v. Italian Republic (')                     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
 (Failure to fulfil obligations — Failure to transpose
           Directives 89/369/EEC and 89/429/EEC)
                           ( 96/C 336/03 )                            In Case C-107/94 : reference to the Court pursuant to
                                                                      Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Hoge Raad der
                                                                      Nederlanden ( Supreme Court of the Netherlands ) for a
                  (Language of the case: Italian)                      preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
                                                                      court between P. H. Asscher and Staatssecretaris van
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be          Financien — on the interpretation of Article 48 of the EEC
           published in the European Court Reports)                   Treaty, now the EC Treaty — the Court ( Fifth Chamber ),
                                                                      composed of: D. A. O. Edward , President of the Chamber,
                                                                      J. -P. Puissochet, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida , C. Gulmann
In Case C-237/95 : Commission of the European
                                                                       and M. Wathelet ( Rapporteur ), Judges; P. Leger,
 Communities ( Agents : Maria Kontou-Durande and Laura
                                                                       Advocate-General ; H. A. Ruhl , Principal Administrator, for
Pignataro ) v. Italian Republic ( Agent : Professor Umberto            the Registrar, gave judgment on 27 June 1996 , the operative
 Leanza, assisted by Pier Giorgio Ferri ) — application for a          part of which is as follows :
declaration that, by failing to adopt or to communicate the
 laws , regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
comply with Council Directive 89/369/EEC of 8 June 1989                 1 . A national of a Member State pursuing an activity as a
 on the prevention of air pollution from new municipal                       self-employed person in another Member State, in which
 waste-incineration plants ( 2 ) and Council Directive                       he resides, may rely on Article 52 of the EC Treaty as
 89/429/EEC of 21 June 1989 on the reduction of air                          against his State of origin, on whose territory he pursues
 pollution from existing municipal waste-incineration                        another activity as a self-employed person, if, by virtue
 plants ( 3 ), the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its                 of pursuing an economic activity in a Member State
 obligations pursuant to the EC Treaty — the Court ( Fifth                   other than his State of origin, he is, with regard to the
 Chamber ), composed of D. A. O. Edward ( Rapporteur ),                      latter, in a situation which may be regarded as
 President of the Chamber, J. -P. Puissochet, J. C. Moitinho                 equivalent to that of any other person relying as against
 de Almeida, C. Gulmann and P. Jann, Judges; M. B. Elmer,                    the host Member State on the rights and liberties
 Advocate-General ; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a                         guaranteed by the Treaty.
 judgment on 20 June 1996 , in which it :
                                                                       2 . Article 52 of the Treaty is to be interpreted as precluding
  1 . Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed               a Member State from applying to a national of a
       period the laws, regulations and administrative                       Member State who pursues an activity as a
       provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive                 self-employed person within its territory and at the same
       89/369/EEC of 8 June 1989 on the prevention of air                    time pursues another actwity as a self-employed person
       pollution from new municipal waste-incineration                       in another Member State, in which he resides, a higher
       plants, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its                 rate of income tax than that applicable to residents
       obligations pursuant to Article 12 ( 1 ) of that                      pursuing the same activity where there is no objective
       Directive:                                                            difference between the situation of such taxpayers and


title: Case C-555/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikrateias lodged on 3 November 2011 — Enosis Epangelmation Asfaliston Ellados (EEAE), Sillogos Asfalistikon Praktoron Nomou Attikis (SPATE), Panellinios Sillogos Asfalistikon Simboulon (PSAS), Sindesmos Ellinon Mesiton Asfaliseon (SEMA), Panellinios Sindesmos Sintoniston Asfalistikon Simboulon (PSAS) v Ipourgos Anaptixis and Omospondias Asfalistikon Sillogon Ellados

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/33

      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikrateias lodged on 3 November 2011 — Enosis Epangelmation Asfaliston Ellados (EEAE), Sillogos Asfalistikon Praktoron Nomou Attikis (SPATE), Panellinios Sillogos Asfalistikon Simboulon (PSAS), Sindesmos Ellinon Mesiton Asfaliseon (SEMA), Panellinios Sindesmos Sintoniston Asfalistikon Simboulon (PSAS) v Ipourgos Anaptixis and Omospondias Asfalistikon Sillogon Ellados
      (Case C-555/11)
      (2012/C 25/61)
      Language of the case: Greek

         Referring court

      Simvoulio tis Epikrateias (Council of State)

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Enosis Epangelmation Asfaliston Ellados (Hellenic Association of Insurance Professionals, EEAE), Sillogos Asfalistikon Praktoron Nomou Attikis (Attica Association of Insurance Agents, SPATE), Panellinios Sillogos Asfalistikon Simboulon (Hellenic Association of Insurance Advisors, PSAS), Sindesmos Ellinon Mesiton Asfaliseon (Hellenic Insurance Broker Association, SEMA), Panellinios Sindesmos Sintoniston Asfalistikon Simboulon (Hellenic Association of Insurance Advisor Coordinators, PSAS).

         Defendants: Ipourgos Anaptixis (Minister for Development), Omospondias Asfalistikon Sillogon Ellados (Federation of Hellenic Insurance Associations)

         Question referred

      Does the provision of the second subparagraph of Article 2(3) of Directive 2002/92/EC, which states: ‘These activities (those listed in the first subparagraph of that provision) when undertaken by an insurance undertaking or an employee of an insurance undertaking who is acting under the responsibility of the insurance undertaking shall not be considered as insurance mediation’, mean that an employee of an insurance undertaking who does not have the qualifications required under Article 4(1) of that directive is permitted to pursue the activity of insurance mediation on an incidental basis, and not as his main professional activity, even if that employee does not have an employment relationship with the undertaking, which however supervises his actions, or does the directive permit that activity to be pursued only within the framework of an employment relationship?


title: Case F-19/11: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 7 July 2011 — Galvan v Commission (Civil Service — Person claiming the status of official or servant of the European Union — Action — Manifest inadmissibility — Failure to observe the pre-litigation procedure)

text:
               12.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/31

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 7 July 2011 — Galvan v Commission
   (Case F-19/11)
   (Civil Service - Person claiming the status of official or servant of the European Union - Action - Manifest inadmissibility - Failure to observe the pre-litigation procedure)
   2012/C 138/69
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Mario Galvan (Besano, Italy) (represented by: S. Costantino, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Re:

   The applicant’s request to be granted the status of official or servant of the European Union.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               Mr Galvan is to pay his own costs.


title: Case C-411/05: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 October 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social de Madrid — Spain) — Félix Palacios de la Villa v Cortefiel Servicios SA (Directive 2000/78/EC — Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Scope — Collective agreement providing for automatic termination of employment relationship where a worker has reached 65 years of age and is entitled to a retirement pension — Age discrimination — Justification)

text:
               8.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/6

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 October 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social de Madrid — Spain) — Félix Palacios de la Villa v Cortefiel Servicios SA
   (Case C-411/05) (1)

   (Directive 2000/78/EC - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Scope - Collective agreement providing for automatic termination of employment relationship where a worker has reached 65 years of age and is entitled to a retirement pension - Age discrimination - Justification)
   (2007/C 297/09)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Referring court
   Juzgado de lo Social de Madrid
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Félix Palacios de la Villa

      Defendant: Cortefiel Servicios SA
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Juzgado de lo Social de Madrid — Interpretation of Art. 2(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16) — National rules transposing the directive which include a transitional provision whereby compulsory retirement clauses not justified by employment policy objectives but contained in collective agreements are deemed valid.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The prohibition on any discrimination on grounds of age, as implemented by Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, pursuant to which compulsory retirement clauses contained in collective agreements are lawful where such clauses provide as sole requirements that workers must have reached retirement age, set at 65 by national law, and must have fulfilled the conditions set out in the social security legislation for entitlement to a retirement pension under their contribution regime, where

               —

               the measure, although based on age, is objectively and reasonably justified in the context of national law by a legitimate aim relating to employment policy and the labour market, and

               —

               the means put in place to achieve that aim of public interest do not appear to be inappropriate and unnecessary for the purpose.

      (1)  OJ C 36, 11.2.2006.


title: ASSIGNMENT OF JUDGES TO CHAMBERS

text:
4 . 3 . 95             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 54/15
                                                      COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                           ASSIGNMENT OF JUDGES TO CHAMBERS
                                                              ( 95/C 54/25 )
               Following the taking up by Ms Tiili, Ms Lindh and Mr Azizi of their duties as Judges, the Court of
               First Instance decides, in accordance with Article 10 ( 1 ) of the Rules of Procedure, to supplement as
               follows the Decision of 2 June 1994 i 1 ) on the composition of the Chambers for the 1994/1995
               judicial year:
               — Judge Tiili is assigned to the First Chamber, to the First Chamber in its extended composition and
                   to the Second Chamber in its extended composition,
               — Judge Lindh is assigned to the Fourth Chamber, to the Third Chamber in its extended
                   composition and to the Fourth Chamber in its extended composition,
               — Judge Azizi is assigned to the Third Chamber, to the Third Chamber in its extended composition
                   and to the Fourth Chamber in its extended composition.
               (!) OJ No C 233 , 20 . 8 . 1994 .
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 2. orders the applicant to pay the whole of the costs,
                      of 12 January 1995                                     including those incurred by the intervener, Parker Pen
                                                                             Ltd.
in Case T-l 02/92: Viho Europe BV v. Commission of the
                   European Communities (*)                             (!) OJ No C 1 , 5 . 1 . 1993 .
(Competition — Complaints — Rejection — Agreements,
decisions and concerted practices — Groups of companies
                — Article 85 (1) of the Treaty)
                          ( 95/C 54/26 )
                                                                         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Third Chamber)
               (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                of 12 January 1995
                                                                        in Case T-85/94: Eugenio Branco La*. v. Commission of the
In Case T-l 02/92: Viho Europe BV, established in                                         European Communities C )
Maastricht (Netherlands ), represented by Werner
Kleinmann, Rechtsanwalt, Stuttgart, with an address for                 (European Social Fund — Application for annulment of a
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Dupong et                      decision reducing financial assistance initially granted —
Associés, 14A Rue des Bains, v. Commission of the                               Statement of reasons — Default proceedings)
European Communities (Agents: B. Langeheine and B.J.                                                95/C 54/27)
Drijber ), supported by Parker Pen Ltd, whose registered
office is in Newhaven (United Kingdom), represented by                               (Language of the case: Portuguese)
Carla Hamburger, of the Amsterdam Bar, with an address
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Loesch,               In Case T-85/94: Eugenio Branco Lda, having its registered
11 Rue Goethe — application for the annulment of the                    office in Lisbon, represented by Bolota Belchior, of the Bar
Commission Decision of 30 September 1992 rejecting the                  of Vila Nova de Gaia, with an address for service in
complaint of Viho Europe BV that Parker Pen Ltd and its                 Luxembourg at the Chambers of Jacques Schroeder, 6 Rue
subsidiaries infringed Article 85 ( 1 ) of the EEC Treaty               Heine, against Commission of the European Communities
(IV/32.725 — Viho/Parker Pen II) — the Court of First                   (Agents: F. de Sousa Fialho and H. Kreppel) — application
Instance (First Chamber ), composed of: R. Schintgen,                   for the annulment of the Commission decision of 29 March
President, and R. García-Valdecasas, H. Kirschner, B.                   1993 reducing the assistance initially granted to the
Vesterdorf and C.W. Bellamy, Judges, H. Jung, Registrar,                applicant by the European Social Fund — the Court of First
has given a judgment on 12 January 1995, in which it:                   Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: J. Biancarelli,
                                                                        President, C.P. Briët and C.W. Bellamy, Judges, H. Jung,
                                                                        Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 January 1995, in
 1 . dismisses the application;                                         which it:


title: Case T-432/16: Action brought on 26 July 2016 — Lackmann Fleisch- und Feinkostfabrik v EUIPO (медведь)

text:
               3.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 364/22

      Action brought on 26 July 2016 — Lackmann Fleisch- und Feinkostfabrik v EUIPO (медведь)
      (Case T-432/16)
      (2016/C 364/22)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Lackmann Fleisch- und Feinkostfabrik GmbH (Bühl, Germany) (represented by: A. Lingenfelser, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark including the word element ‘медведь’ — Application No 14 397 921

         Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 May 2016 in Case R 240/2016-1

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision and grant the applicant’s application for registration of the trade mark at issue.

         Plea in law

                  —

                  The trade mark at issue is not descriptive and has distinctive character.


title: Case C-22/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul București (Romania) lodged on 15 January 2016 — Fondul Proprietatea SA v SC Hidroelectrica SA

text:
               4.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/11

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul București (Romania) lodged on 15 January 2016 — Fondul Proprietatea SA v SC Hidroelectrica SA
   (Case C-22/16)
   (2016/C 118/14)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Tribunalul București

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Fondul Proprietatea SA

      Defendant: SC Hidroelectrica SA

      Questions referred

               1.

               For the purposes of Article 107 TFEU, is the holding by a Romanian publicly-funded company of shares in a joint (Romanian-Turkish) company equivalent to State aid subject to the obligation to notify set out in Article 108(3) TFEU?
               Does it constitute public funding selective in nature, and could it have an effect on trade between Member States of the European Union?

               2.

               Can it be held that such a shareholding by a publicly-owned electricity-producing company infringes the principle of separating transmission systems from transmission system operators established by Article 9 of Directive 2009/72/EC (1) concerning rules adopted for the internal market in electricity?

      (1)  Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC (OJ 2009 L 211, p. 55).


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 May 2005 in Case T-31/03 Grupo Sada PA SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for a figurative Community trade mark containing the verbal element ‘GRUPO SADA’ — Earlier figurative national trade mark including the verbal element ‘sadia’ — Refusal in part to register — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               9.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/15

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 11 May 2005
   in Case T-31/03 Grupo Sada PA SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for a figurative Community trade mark containing the verbal element ‘GRUPO SADA’ - Earlier figurative national trade mark including the verbal element ‘sadia’ - Refusal in part to register - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2005/C 171/25)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   In Case T-31/03: Grupo Sada PA SA, established in Madrid, Spain, represented by A. Aguilar De Armas and J. Marrero Ortega, lawyers, against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) (Agents: J. García Murillo and G. Schneider), the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the OHIM, intervening before the Court of First Instance, being Sadia SA, established at Concordia (Brazil), represented by J. García del Santo and P. García Cabrerizo, lawyers — application for annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 20 November 2002 (case R 567/2001-1) — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of H. Legal, President, P. Mengozzi and I. Wiszniewska-Bialecka, Judges; B. Pastor, Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 May 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 70 of 22 March 2003


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 25 February 1999 in Case C-195/97: Commission of the European Communities v. Italian Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Failure to transpose Directive 91/676/EEC)

text:
C 100/8              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    10.4.1999
Advocate-General: A. La Pergola, Registrar: H. von                   within the meaning of Article 905(1) of Commission
Holstein, Assistant Registrar, has given a judgment on               Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying
23 February 1999, in which it:                                       down provisions for the implementation of Council
                                                                     Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the
                                                                     Community         Customs     Code       exist,   necessitating
1. Dismisses the application;                                        examination of the file by the Commission, where, having
                                                                     regard to the objective of fairness underlying Article 239
                                                                     of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 factors liable to place
                                                                     the applicant in an exceptional situation as compared with
2. Orders the Parliament to pay the costs.                           other operators engaged in the same business are found to
                                                                     exist and the conditions laid down in Article 900(1)(a) of
                                                                     Regulation No 2454/93, for remission of customs duties in
(1) OJ C 74, 8.3.1997.                                               favour of an applicant, are not fulfilled.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 131, 26.4.1997.
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       (Sixth Chamber)
                    of 25 February 1999                                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
in Case C-86/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                                    (Sixth Chamber)
the Bundesfinanzhof): Reiner Woltmann, trading as
      Trans-Ex-Import' v. Hauptzollamt Potsdam (1)                                       of 25 February 1999
(Theft of goods Ð Customs duties Ð Remission Ð                       in   Case    C-195/97: Commission of the             European
                       Special situation)                                         Communities v. Italian Republic (1)
                       (1999/C 100/12)                               (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations Ð
                                                                              Failure to transpose Directive 91/676/EEC)
                                                                                (1999/C 100/13)
               (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
         published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
In Case C-86/97: reference to the Court under Article 177                      published in the European Court Reports)
of the EC Treaty from the Bundesfinanzhof, Germany, for
a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before
that court between Reiner Woltmann, trading as Trans-
Ex-Import', and Hauptzollamt Potsdam Ð on the                        In Case C-195/97: Commission of the European
interpretation of Article 905(1) of Commission Regulation            Communities (Agent: Paolo Stancanelli) v. Italian Republic
(EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions               (Agent: Professor Umberto Leanza, assisted by Pier
for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC)                   Giorgio Ferri) Ð application for a declaration that, by
No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code                   failing to adopt and communicate within the prescribed
(OJ L 253, 11.10.1993, p. 1) Ð the Court (Sixth                      period the provisions necessary to transpose into domestic
Chamber), composed of: G. Hirsch, President of the                   law Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991
Second Chamber, acting as President of the Sixth                     concerning the protection of waters against pollution
Chamber, G. F. Mancini, J. L. Murray (Rapporteur), H.                caused by nitrates from agricultural sources (OJ L 375,
Ragnemalm and R. Schintgen, Judges; G. Cosmas,                       31.12.1991, p. 1), and in particular by failing to comply
Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a                   with the obligation laid down in Article 3(2) of the
judgment on 25 February 1999, in which it has ruled:                 Directive, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
                                                                     obligations under Community law Ð the Court (Sixth
                                                                     Chamber), composed of: P. J. G. Kapteyn, President of the
                                                                     Chamber, G. F. Mancini, J. L. Murray (Rapporteur), H.
Factors which might constitute a special situation resulting         Ragnemalm and K. M. Ioannou, Judges; P. LeÂger,
from circumstances in which no deception or obvious                  Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
negligence may be attributed to the person concerned,                judgment on 25 February 1999, in which it:
 ---pagebreak--- 10.4.1999            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 100/9
1. Declares that, by failing to adopt and communicate to            extend to the fields covered by Articles 1 to 5, Article 7,
     the Commission within the prescribed period the laws,          Article 14, Article 16(1) and (3) and Articles 17 to 19.
     regulations and administrative provisions necessary
     to implement Council Directive 91/676/EEC of
     12 December 1991 concerning the protection of                  This view is, it is submitted, wrong in law in that it is:
     waters against pollution caused by nitrates from
     agricultural sources, and in particular by failing to
     comply with the obligation laid down in Article 3(2)           Ð contrary to the Treaty; and
     thereof, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
     obligations under Article 12(1) thereof.
                                                                    Ð inconsistent with the legislative action taken over the
                                                                        years by the Council itself, on proposals from the
2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                        Commission.
(1) OJ C 212, 12.7.1997.
                                                                    Reference for a preliminary ruling by the House of Lords,
                                                                    by order of that court of 1 February 1999, in the case of
Action brought on 5 February 1999 by the Commission of              Commissioners of Customs and Excise against Primback
the European Communities against the Council of the                                               Ltd
                       European Union                                                       (Case C-34/99)
                        (Case C-29/99)                                                     (1999/C 100/15)
                       (1999/C 100/14)
                                                                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                    European Communities by an order of the House of Lords
An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                    of 1 February 1999, which was received at the Court
brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                    Registry on 8 February 1999, for a preliminary ruling in
Communities on 5 February 1999 by the Commission of
                                                                    the case of Commissioners of Customs and Excise against
the European Communities, represented by Thomas F.
                                                                    Primback Ltd, on the following questions:
Cusack and Lena Ström, Legal Advisers, acting as agents,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Office of
Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, member of the Legal Service of
the Commission, Centre Wagner.                                      1. Where a retailer offers, at a single price, goods and the
                                                                        option of a period of extendes credit to pay that price
                                                                        Ð the credit to be provided by a person other than the
                                                                        retailer, and at no additional cost to the customer Ð
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             what is the taxable amount for which the retailer must
                                                                        account in respect of the goods supplied, having
                                                                        regard to Articles 11A(1)(a) and 13B(d)(1) of Council
Ð order that the final paragraph of the Declaration by                  Directive 77/388/EEC (1)? In particular, is the taxable
     the European Atomic Energy Community according to                  amount:
     the provisions of Article 30(4)(iii) of the Convention
     on Nuclear Safety attached to the Council's Decision
     of 7 December 1998 be annulled;                                    (a) the full amount payable by the customer;
                                                                        (b) the full amount payable by the customer, less the
Ð order the Council          to  pay   the  costs   of  these               value of the credit;
     proceedings.
                                                                        (c) (if different from (b) above) the amount actually
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support                          received by the retailer; or
                                                                        (d) an amount calculated on some other, and if so
By limiting the terms of the final paragraph of the                         what, basis?
Declaration attached to its Decision of 7 December 1998
in relation to Community competence, the Council seeks
to establish that the competence of the Community in the            2. If the taxable amount is the full amount payable by
fields covered by the Convention on Nuclear Safety is                   the customer, less the value of the credit (see
limited to Article 15 and Article 16(2) and that it does not            question 1(b) above), how is that credit to be valued?


title: Case C-423/04: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of  27 April 2006  (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Social Security Commissioner) — Sarah Margaret Richards v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security — Directive 79/7/EEC — Refusal to award a retirement pension at the age of 60 to a transsexual who has undergone male-to-female gender reassignment surgery)

text:
               17.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/13

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 April 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Social Security Commissioner) — Sarah Margaret Richards v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
   (Case C-423/04) (1)

   (Equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security - Directive 79/7/EEC - Refusal to award a retirement pension at the age of 60 to a transsexual who has undergone male-to-female gender reassignment surgery)
   (2006/C 143/23)
   Language of the case: English
   Referring court
   Social Security Commissioner
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Sarah Margaret Richards

      Defendant: Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social Security Commissioner — Interpretation of Articles 4 and 7 of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security — Refusal to award a retirement pension at the age of 60 to a male-to-female transsexual, the age at which entitlement to such a pension would have arisen if that person had been born female.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Article 4(1) of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security is to be interpreted as precluding legislation which denies a person who, in accordance with the conditions laid down by national law, has undergone male-to-female gender reassignment entitlement to a retirement pension on the ground that she has not reached the age of 65, when she would have been entitled to such a pension at the age of 60 had she been held to be a woman as a matter of national law.

               2.

               There is no need to limit the temporal effects of this judgment.

      (1)  OJ C 300, 4.12.2004.


title: Case C-264/11 P: Appeal brought on 27 May 2011 by Kaimer GmbH & Co. Holding KG and Others against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 24 March 2011 in Case T-379/06 Kaimer GmbH & Co. Holding KG, Sanha Kaimer GmbH & Co. KG, Sanha Italia Srl. v European Commission

text:
               10.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/22

         Appeal brought on 27 May 2011 by Kaimer GmbH & Co. Holding KG and Others against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 24 March 2011 in Case T-379/06 Kaimer GmbH & Co. Holding KG, Sanha Kaimer GmbH & Co. KG, Sanha Italia Srl. v European Commission
   (Case C-264/11 P)
   2011/C 269/42
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellants: Kaimer GmbH & Co. Holding KG, Sanha Kaimer GmbH & Co. KG, Sanha Italia Srl. (represented by: J. Brück, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2011 in Case T-379/06 Kaimer and Others v Commission in so far as the action was dismissed, and annul Commission Decision C(2006) 4180 of 20 September 2006 (Case COMP/F-1/38.121 — Fittings);

               —

               in the alternative, set aside the judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2011 in Case T-379/06 Kaimer and Others v Commission in so far as the action was dismissed, and reduce the fine imposed under Article 2 of Commission Decision C(2006) 4180 of 20 September 2006 (Case COMP/F-1/38.121 — Fittings);

               —

               in the further alternative, refer the case back to the General Court for reconsideration;

               —

               order the respondent to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present appeal has been brought against the judgment of the General Court dismissing in part the appellants’ action challenging Commission Decision C(2006) 4180 final of 20 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F-1/38.121 — Fittings).
   The appellants raise three pleas in law.
   By their first plea in law, the appellants complain of the distortion of evidence by the General Court. The General Court based its assumption regarding the starting date of the infringement on a particular piece of evidence. Contrary to the clear wording of that evidence, the General Court regards it as proof of the starting date of the infringement. A correct assessment of the evidence would suggest precisely the opposite, namely that there was uncertainty on the market about the appellants’ conduct on the market. A correct assessment of the evidence is possible on the basis of the document itself, without any further evidence being required.
   By their second plea in law, the appellants object to the erroneous assessment of the probative value of leniency statements. The grounds on which the second plea in law is based are twofold. First, the General Court erred in law in attributing special probative value to the leniency statements. The relevant leniency statements in the present proceedings were made by leniency applicants who had to offer the Commission added value in order to obtain the highest possible reduction in fines, resulting in an excessive tendency to apportion blame in the statements and not, therefore, in any special probative value. The General Court did not address that point in the grounds of its judgment.
   Second, the General Court did not resolve an inconsistency between the individual leniency statements, as a result of which the grounds of the judgment are erroneous and incomplete. The first applicant for leniency in the proceedings did not name the appellants as participants in the infringement even though it made a full statement and, as a result, obtained full immunity from the fine. The allegations of fact vis-à-vis the appellants are based on the statements of subsequent leniency applicants. That inconsistency ought to have been resolved, particularly where the statement of the first undertaking to cooperate with the Commission is deemed to have special probative value.
   By their third plea in law, the appellants allege infringement of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and of the European Convention on Human Rights (‘ECHR’). The appellants regard this overriding legislation as having been infringed in two respects. First, the plausibility check carried out by the General Court in cartel fine proceedings does not satisfy the requirements of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and of the ECHR with regard to an effective legal remedy. In that context, the appellants refer to the fact that the Commission’s decisions on fines are at least to some extent akin to criminal law sanctions. Moreover, the Commission’s own procedure fails to meet the standards of the ECHR and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. In support of that assertion, the appellants observe that the Commission investigates the relevant facts, prosecutes undertakings and subsequently even decides on the nature and amount of the penalty. Such a procedure would be acceptable only if the Commission’s decisions were subject to full review by a court. As maintained in the context of the first part of the third plea in law, however, the General Court confines itself in subsequent examinations of Commission decisions to obvious inconsistencies and does not make its own direct findings of fact.


title: Case C-222/03 P: Appeal brought on 21 May 2003 by Associazione Produttori Olivicoli Laziali (APOL) and Associazione Italiana Produttori Olivicoli (AIPO) against the judgment delivered on 6 March 2003 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-61/00 and T-62/00 Associazione Produttori Olivicoli Laziali (APOL) and Associazione Italiana Produttori Olivicoli (AIPO) v Commission

text:
19.7.2003                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 171/17
       designated by the Flemish Region and is incomplete.                   Produttori Olivicoli Laziali (APOL) and Associazione Italiana
       Finally, the report on the Flemish Region does not                    Produttori Olivicoli (AIPO), represented by Emilio Cappelli,
       reproduce all the documents and information required by               Paolo De Caterini and Andrea Bandini, of the Rome Bar.
       Article 10 in conjunction with Annex V to the directive.
                                                                             The appellants claim that the Court should:
—      The Walloon Region has infringed Articles 10(2) and 12
       of the directive in that the procedure of defining waters             —     set aside the judgment of Court of First Instance (Second
       and subsequently designating vulnerable zones covers                        Chamber) of 6 March 2003 in Joined Cases T-61/00 and
       only a part of its territory and was finished belatedly and                 T-62/00.
       the designation of vulnerable zones remains insufficient
       to date. In addition, the competent Walloon authority did
       not take into account the pollution of coastal and marine
       waters when identifying waters affected by pollution and              Pleas in law and main arguments
       designating vulnerable zones, in breach of Article 3 of
       the directive. It also infringed Article 5 of the directive,
                                                                             The appellants allege that the judgment of the Court of First
       since after it designated two vulnerable zones in its
                                                                             Instance is vitiated on the following grounds:
       territory the Walloon Region should have established
       action programmes within the prescribed period, whereas
                                                                             —     erroneous interpretation and misapplication of the prin-
       those programmes have not yet been adopted to date.
                                                                                ciple of force majeure;
                                                                             —     erroneous interpretation and misapplication of the prin-
( 1) Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning                   ciple of proportionality and of Articles 9(1) and 17(2)(b)
     the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from            of Regulation No 355/77; inadequate reasoning inasmuch
     agricultural sources (OJ L 375 of 21.12.1991, p. 1).                          as it was manifestly illogical and contradictory;
                                                                             —     breach of the rights of the rights of the defence for failure
                                                                                to fulfil the obligation to carry out an inquiry;
                                                                             —     failure to rule on whether a measure of inquiry was
                                                                                appropriate.
Appeal brought on 21 May 2003 by Associazione Produt-
tori Olivicoli Laziali (APOL) and Associazione Italiana                      Action brought on 22 May 2003 by the Commission of
Produttori Olivicoli (AIPO) against the judgment deliver-                     the European Communities against the French Republic
ed on 6 March 2003 by the First Chamber of the Court of
First Instance of the European Communities in Joined                                                   (Case C-225/03)
Cases T-61/00 and T-62/00 Associazione Produttori Oli-
vicoli Laziali (APOL) and Associazione Italiana Produttori
                  Olivicoli (AIPO) v Commission                                                        (2003/C 171/24)
                          (Case C-222/03 P)                                  An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                             Court of Justice of the European Communities on 22 May
                                                                             2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                             represented by L. Ström and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents,
                           (2003/C 171/23)                                   with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                             The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                             the Court should:
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 6 March 2003                     1.    declare that by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations
by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                         and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
European Communities in Joined Cases T-61/00 and T-62/                             Directive 98/79/EC of the European Parliament and of
00 Associazione Produttori Olivicoli Laziali (APOL) and                            the Council of 27 October 1998 on in vitro diagnostic
Associazione Italiana Produttori Olivicoli (AIPO) v Com-                           medical devices ( 1) or, in any event, by failing to notify
mission was brought before the Court of Justice of the                             the Commission of such provisions, the French Republic
European Communities on 21 May 2003 by Associazione                                has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;


title: Case T-683/14 P: Judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2015 — Morgan v OHIM (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Appraisal report — 2010-2011 Appraisal period — Distortion — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment)

text:
               25.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 27/52

         Judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2015 — Morgan v OHIM
   (Case T-683/14 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Appraisal report - 2010-2011 Appraisal period - Distortion - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment))
   (2016/C 027/66)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Rhys Morgan (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by M. Paolacci and A. Lukošiūtė, and subsequently by A. Lukošiūtė, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 8 July 2014 in Morgan v OHIM (F-26/13, ECR-SC, EU:F:2014:180), and seeking to have that judgment set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Declares that Rhys Morgan is to bear his own costs and orders him to pay the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) in the present appeal proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 431, 1.12.2014.


title: Case T-81/16: Action brought on 18 February 2016 — Pirelli Tyre v EUIPO (two curved stripes on the sidewall of a tyre)

text:
               2.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/51

         Action brought on 18 February 2016 — Pirelli Tyre v EUIPO (two curved stripes on the sidewall of a tyre)
   (Case T-81/16)
   (2016/C 156/68)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Pirelli Tyre SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: T. Müller, F. Togo, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: EU position mark consisting in two curved stripes positioned on the sidewall of a tyre — Application for registration No 13 388 293

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 December 2015 in Case R 1019/2015-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of several formal and procedural principles when assessing the absolute grounds;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Action brought on 27 June 1997 by the French Republic against the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-235/97)

text:
No C 252/20             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                            16 . 8 . 97
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Juzgado de lo                     — FF 103 286 730 eligible expenditure corresponding
Social No 4 of Madrid by order of that court of 30 May                           to intervention measures concerning the public
1997 in the case of Teresa Fernandez de Bobadilla against                         storage of cereals,
( 1 ) Museo Nacional del Prado, (2 ) Ministerio Fiscal and
          ( 3 ) Comite de Empresa del Museo del Prado                      — FF 720 720 eligible expenditure under the export
                                                                                refund system in respect of an export operation of
                         ( Case C-234/97)                                         73,5 tonnes of processed cheese for Saudi Arabia ,
                           ( 97/C 252/39 )
                                                                      — in         the  alternative,    consider    the   correction        of
                                                                            FF 103 286 730 concerning the public storage of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      cereals to be disproportionate in amount,
European Communities by order of the Juzgado de lo
Social No 4 ( Social Court No 4 ) of Madrid of 30 May                 — order the defendant to pay the costs.
1997, received at the Court Registry on 26 June 1997, for
a preliminary ruling in the case of Teresa Fernandez de               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Bobadilla against ( 1 ) Museo Nacional del Prado, ( 2 )
Ministerio Fiscal and ( 3 ) Comite de Empresa del Museo               ( As regards expenditure in the cereal sector )
del Prado on the following question:
                                                                      — France would put forward the same pleas as it did in
                                                                            Case C-232/96 ( 2 ).
Does the provision contained in the Collective Agreement
of an Autonomous Organization of the Spanish State                    ( As regards the application of the export refund system in
which requires, for pursuit of the profession of restorer (a          respect of consignment of processed cheese exported to
non-regulated profession), prior validation of the academic           Saudi Arabia )
qualification obtained in another Community country —
such validation involving a comparison of the study                   — Breach of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 729/70 of
programmes in Spain and in the other country and the                        21 April 1970 on the financing of the common
passing of theoretical and practical tests in the subjects in               agricultural policy ( 3 ): the export operation took place
the Spanish programme of studies which do not appear in                     in accordance with the Community rules in force, in
the programme of studies of the other Community country                     particular in compliance with Articles 5 and 13 of
in question — infringe the right to freedom of movement                     Commission Regulation ( EEC) No 3665/87 of
for workers ?                                                               27 November 1987 laying down common detailed
                                                                            rules for the application of the system of export
                                                                            refunds on agricultural products (4 ). In the absence of
                                                                            Community standards, the Member States are
                                                                            competent to define the ' sound and fair marketable
                                                                            quality' of products . The French Commission
                                                                            Interministerielle     de   Coordination     des      Controles
Action brought on 27 June 1997 by the French Republic                       ( Interministerial Commission for Coordinating
    against the Commission of the European Communities                      Controls ) considered that the criteria for determining
                           Case C-235/97 )                                  that the product in question was not of sound and fair
                                                                            marketable quality were not satisfied. The cheese was
                           ( 97/C 252/40 )                                  destroyed in order to preserve the product's brand
                                                                            image after the customs formalities had been
                                                                            completed and despite the fact that the Saudi
An action against the Commission of the European                            authorities had not expressed any reservations on
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice on                      importation.
27 June 1997 by the French Republic, represented by
Kareen Rispal-Bellanger, Deputy Director of the Legal                 H OJ No L 139, 30 . 5 . 1997, p . 30 .
Affairs Directorate at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and           (2 ) OJ No C 269, 14 . 9 . 1996 , p. 9 .
Frederic Pascal, Attache from the Central Administration              (3 ) Official Journal, English Special Edition 1970 ( 1 ), p. 218 .
                                                                      (4 ) OJ No L 351 , 14 . 12 . 1987, p. 1 .
in the same Department, acting as Agents, with an address
for service in Luxembourg at the French Embassy, 8B
Boulevard Joseph II.
The French Republic claims that the Court should :
                                                                      Reference for a preliminary ruling by the 0stre Landsret
                                                                      by order of 24 June 1997 in the case of Skatteministeriet
— declare null and void Commission Decision 97/333/EC                            v. Aktieselskabet Forsikringsselskabet Codan
      of 23 April 1997 (') on the clearance of the accounts                                     ( Case C-236/97)
      presented by the Member States in respect of the
                                                                                ( 97/C 252/41 )
      expenditure for 1993 on the Guarantee Section of the
      European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund
      ( EAGGF), inasmuch as that decision disallows for               Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      France :                                                        European Communities by order of 24 June 1997 from


title: Case T-659/16: Judgment of the General Court of 14 June 2017 — LG Electronics v EUIPO (Second Display) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark Second Display — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptiveness — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               31.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/28

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 June 2017 — LG Electronics v EUIPO (Second Display)
   (Case T-659/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark Second Display - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptiveness - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 249/42)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: LG Electronics, Inc. (Seoul, Republic of Korea) (represented by: T. de Haan and P. Péters, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO dated 10 June 2016 (Case R 106/2016-1) concerning an application for registration of the word sign Second Display as an EU trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders LG Electronics, Inc. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 402, 31.10.2016.


title: Action brought on 6 February 1995 by Gerd Kühle against Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (Case T-16/95)

text:
25 . 3 . 95           EN                  Official Journal -of the European Communities                              No C 74/15
his application for the three posts in question was adopted in        Pleas in law and main arguments
breach of the order of priority laid down in Article 29 of the
Regulations and in point 6 of the vacancy notice, which               The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in
specifically stated that the appointing authority would               Case T-20/94 .
consider whether the posts could be filled by transfer
according to priority.
The applicant also points out that the appointing authority
breached the vacancy notice by selecting candidates by
reference to criteria other than those appearing in the said          Action brought on 6 February 1995 by Gerd Kühle against
notice . He points out that the appointing authority                  Council of the European Union and Commission of the
expressly acknowledged that it had made its choice from                                 European Communities
among agents with occupational experience as messengers                                     ( Case T-16/95 )
who already occupied such posts .
                                                                                ( 95/C 74/29
Furthermore, the applicant considers that the contested
decision is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment and was                      (Language of the case: German)
adopted in breach of the gurantees given under Article 45 of
the Regulations.                                                      An action against the Council of the European Union and
                                                                      Commission of the European Communities was brought
Finally, the applicant alleges that the defendant failed, even        before the Court of First Instance of the European
when giving a reply expressly rejecting his complaint, to             Communities on 6 February 1995 by Gerd Kühle, Berge
provide the information which would enable him to                     ( Federal Republic of Germany), represented by Bernd
ascertain whether the contested decision was valid .                  Meisterernst, Mechtild Düsing, Dietrich Manstetten, Frank
                                                                      Schulze and Winfried Haneklaus, Rechtsanwälte, Munster,
                                                                      with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
                                                                      of Dupong & Associés, 14a Rue des Bains .
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                      1 . order the defendants jointly to pay to the applicant
Action brought on 27 January 1995 by Josef Blum against                    SLOM I compensation for the period from 7 May 1986
Council of the European Union and Commission of the                       to 29 March 1989 in the amount of DM 8 952,80,
                    European Communities                                  together with interest thereon at 8 % from 1 9 May
                                                                           1992, and jointly to pay the costs of the proceedings;
                         ( Case T-14/95 )
                            95/C 74/28                                2 . join the present action to that already pending in Case
                                                                          T-77/93 Hülseberg and Others v. Council and
                                                                           Commission and also stay the proceedings .
               (Language of the case: German)
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments
An action against the Council of the European Union and
Commission of the European Communities was brought                    The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in
before the Court of First Instance of the European                    Case T-20/94 .
Communities on 27 January 1995 by Josef Blum, Hallschlag
(Federal Republic of Germany), represented by Bernd
Meisterernst, Mechtild Düsing, Dietrich Manstetten, Frank
Schulze and Winfried Haneklaus, Rechtsanwälte, Munster,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
of Dupong & Associés, 14a Rue des Bains.                              Action brought on 6 February 1995 by Spyridoulia
                                                                      Alexopoulou against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                                (Case T-17/95 )
 1 . order the defendants jointly to pay to the applicant                                      ( 95/C 74/30 )
     SLOM III compensation for the period from 19 October
     1985 to 29 July 1993 in the amount of DM 29 355,23 ,                            (Language of the case: French)
     together with interest thereon at 8% from 19 May
     1992, and jointly to pay the costs of the proceedings;           An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities was brought before the Court of First
2 . join the present action to that already pending in Case           Instance of the European Communities on 6 February 1995
     T-77/93 Hülseberg and Others v. Council and                      by Spyridoulia Alexopoulou, residing in Brussels (Belgium),
     Commission and also stay the proceedings .                       represented by Constantin Nikis, of the Brussels Bar, with