title: Case C-225/15: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Reggio Calabria — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Domenico Politanò (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 49 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Betting and gambling — Restrictions — Overriding reasons of public interest — Proportionality — Public procurement — Conditions for participating in a call for tenders and assessment of economic and financial standing — Exclusion of the tenderer for not presenting certificates of economic and financial standing issued by two different banks — Directive 2004/18/EC — Article 47 — Applicability)

text:
               31.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 402/9

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Reggio Calabria — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Domenico Politanò
   (Case C-225/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 49 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Betting and gambling - Restrictions - Overriding reasons of public interest - Proportionality - Public procurement - Conditions for participating in a call for tenders and assessment of economic and financial standing - Exclusion of the tenderer for not presenting certificates of economic and financial standing issued by two different banks - Directive 2004/18/EC - Article 47 - Applicability))
   (2016/C 402/11)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Reggio Calabria

      Party in the main proceedings

   Domenico Politanò

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, in particular Article 47, must be interpreted as meaning that national legislation governing the grant of concessions in the field of betting and gambling, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, does not fall within its scope.

               2.

               Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding a national provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which imposes on operators wishing to respond to a call for tenders for the grant of concessions in the field of betting and gambling the obligation of providing evidence of their economic and financial standing by means of statements issued by at least two banks, without also allowing that standing to be proved by other means, where such a provision is capable of satisfying the conditions of proportionality laid down by the case-law of the Court, which is for the referring court to ascertain.

      (1)  OJ C 262, 10.8.2015.


title: Case C-330/06: Order of the President of the Court of 26 April 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland

text:
               20.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/21

         Order of the President of the Court of 26 April 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland
   (Case C-330/06) (1)

   (2007/C 247/29)

      Language of the case: English

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

      (1)  OJ C 224, 16.9.2006.


               18.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 314/11

         Removal from the register of Case C-479/03 (1)

   (2004/C 314/26)
   By order of 23 September 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-479/03: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.

      (1)  OJ C 7 of 10.1.2004.


title: Case C-460/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 28 August 2015 — Schaefer Kalk GmbH & Co. KG v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               23.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 389/17

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 28 August 2015 — Schaefer Kalk GmbH & Co. KG v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-460/15)
   (2015/C 389/19)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Schaefer Kalk GmbH & Co. KG

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Commission Regulation (EU) No 601/2012 (1) invalid and does it infringe the aims of Directive 2003/87/EC (2) in so far as the second sentence of Article 49(1) provides that CO2 that is not transferred within the meaning of the first sentence of Article 49(1) is to be considered emitted by the installation producing the CO2?

               2.

               Is Commission Regulation (EU) No 601/2012 invalid and does it infringe the aims of Directive 2003/87/EC in so far as point 10 of Annex IV provides that CO2 that is transferred to another plant for the production of precipitated calcium carbonate (PCC) is to be considered emitted by the installation producing the CO2?

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 601/2012 of 21 June 2012 on the monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2012 L 181, p. 30).

      (2)  Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32).


title: Case C-253/13: Action brought on 7 May 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria

text:
               29.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 189/13

         Action brought on 7 May 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria
   (Case C-253/13)
   2013/C 189/26
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Heller, O. Beynet and P. Mihaylova, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Bulgaria

      Form of order sought

   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Article 3(3) of Directive 2009/73/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 2003/55/EC and with the second subparagraph of point 1(a) and points 1(b), (d), (f), (h) and (i) of Annex I to that directive, or in any event by failing to notify the Commission of the adoption of those measures, the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 54(1) of that directive;

               —

               Order the Republic of Bulgaria, under Article 260(3) TFEU, to pay a penalty payment in the amount of EUR 8 448 per day as of the day of delivery of the judgment in the present case, for infringement of the duty to notify the Commission of the measures adopted to comply with Directive 2009/73/EC;

               —

               Order the Republic of Bulgaria to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period for the adoption of measures to comply with the Directive expired on 3 March 2011.

      (1)  OJ 2009 L 211, p. 94.


title: Case C-403/00: Action brought on 6 November 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
9.12.2000              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 355/17
Action brought on 25 October 2000 by the Commission                     The Commission claims that the Court should:
        of the European Communities against Ireland
                                                                        1.    declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                         (Case C-394/00)                                      and administrative provisions needed to comply with
                                                                              Commission Directive 98/68/EC (1) of 10 September
                        (2000/C 355/33)                                       1998 laying down the standard document referred to in
                                                                              Article 9(1) of Council Directive 95/53/EC and certain
                                                                              rules for checks at the introduction into the Community
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of                     of feedingstuffs from third countries, the Hellenic Repub-
Justice of the European Communities on 25 October 2000 by                     lic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty and
the Commission of the European Communities, represented                       that directive;
by Mr Götz zur Hausen, Legal Adviser, acting as agent, with
an address for service at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
                                                                        2.    order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
a member of the Legal Service of the Commission, Wagner
Centre, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                             Pleas in law and main arguments
—     declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations            In accordance with the third paragraph of Article 249 of the
      or administrative provisions necessary to comply with             Treaty establishing the European Community, directives are
      Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the              binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member
      control of major accident hazards involving dangerous             State to which they are addressed.
      substances (1), or in any event by failing to inform the
      Commission of those measures, Ireland has failed to fulfil
      its obligations under that Directive.                             Under the first paragraph of Article 10 of the Treaty, Member
                                                                        States are to take all appropriate measures, whether general or
—     order Ireland to pay the costs.                                   particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out
                                                                        of the Treaty or resulting from action taken by the institutions
                                                                        of the Community.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        It is not disputed by the Hellenic Republic that it must adopt
Article 249 EC (ex Article 189 of the EC Treaty) under which            measures to comply with the abovementioned directive.
a directive shall be binding as to the result to be achieved,
upon each Member State, carries by implication an obligation
on the Member States to observe the period for compliance               The Commission records that until now the Hellenic Republic
laid down in the directive. That period expired on 3 February           has not adopted the appropriate measures to incorporate that
1999 without Ireland having enacted the provisions necessary            directive fully into Greek law.
to comply with the directive referred to in the conclusions of
the Commission.
                                                                        (1) OJ L 261, 24.9.1998, p. 32.
(1) OJ L 10, 14.1.1997, p. 13.
Action brought on 26 October 2000 by the Commission                     Action brought on 6 November 2000 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Hellenic Repub-                 of the European Communities against the French Republic
                                lic
                                                                                (Case C-403/00)
                         (Case C-397/00)
                        (2000/C 355/34)                                                           (2000/C 355/35)
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before              An action against the French Republic was brought before the
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 26 Octo-            Court of Justice of the European Communities on 6 November
ber 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,                 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Maria Kondou-Durande, of its Legal Service,              represented by G. Berscheid, Legal Adviser, and A. Bordes, of
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of              its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service
Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,          in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its
Kirchberg.                                                              Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
 ---pagebreak--- C 355/18                 EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      9.12.2000
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         —     Declare that, by failing to adopt plans for managing
—     Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force                   waste, including hazardous waste and packaging waste,
      within the prescribed period the laws, regulations or                    or, in the alternative, by failing to communicate any
      administrative provisions necessary to comply with Com-                  such plans to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of
      mission Directive 97/8/EC amending Council Directive                     Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      74/63/EEC of 17 December 1973 on the fixing of                           Articles 7, 6 and 14 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC on
      maximum permitted levels for undesirable substances                      waste (1), as amended by Directives 91/156/EEC (2), and
      and products in feedingstuffs (1), the French Republic has               Council Directive 91/689/EEC (3) on hazardous waste,
      failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of Directive            and European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC
      97/8/EC.                                                                 of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging
                                                                               waste (4); and
—     Order the French Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                         —     Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         Under Article 249 of the EC Treaty, according to which a
Under Article 249 of the EC Treaty, according to which a                 directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon        each Member State to which it is addressed, Member States are
each Member State to which it is addressed, Member States are            required to observe the time-limits laid down in directives for
required to observe the time-limits laid down in directives for          their transposition. That time-limit expired without the Grand
their transposition. That time-limit expired on 30 June 1998             Duchy of Luxembourg having brought into force the necessary
without the French Republic having brought into force the                provisions in order to comply with the directive referred to in
necessary provisions in order to comply with the directive               the Commission’s application.
referred to in the Commission’s application.
                                                                         ( 1) OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39.
                                                                         ( 2) OJ 1991 L 778, p. 32.
                                                                         ( 3) OJ 1991 L 377, p. 20.
(1) OJ 1997 L 48, p. 30.                                                 ( 4) OJ 1994 L 365, p. 10.
Action brought on 3 November 2000 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy                              Removal from the register of Case C-271/98 (1)
                           of Luxembourg
                                                                                (2000/C 355/37)
                           (Case C-401/00)
                                                                         By order of 12 July 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                         of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                           (2000/C 355/36)                               the register of Case C-271/98 (reference for a preliminary
                                                                         ruling from Juzgado de Primera Instancia (Court of First
                                                                         Instance) No 35 Barcelona): Salvat Editores SA v José Antonio
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was                      Serrano Garrido.
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 3 November 2000 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Roland Tricot, of its Legal                  (1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.
Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its
Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg


title: Case C-492/09: Order of the Court of 15 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Taranto — Italy) — Soc Agricola Esposito srl v Agenzia delle Entrate — Ufficio di Taranto 2 (Articles 92(1), 103(1) and 104(3), second subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure — Electronic networks and communication services — Directives 2002/20/EC, 2002/21/EC and 2002/77/EC — Government authorisation tax — Partial inadmissiblity — Questions the answer to which leaves no room for reasonable doubt)

text:
               16.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 120/2

         Order of the Court of 15 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Taranto — Italy) — Soc Agricola Esposito srl v Agenzia delle Entrate — Ufficio di Taranto 2
   (Case C-492/09) (1)

   (Articles 92(1), 103(1) and 104(3), second subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure - Electronic networks and communication services - Directives 2002/20/EC, 2002/21/EC and 2002/77/EC - Government authorisation tax - Partial inadmissiblity - Questions the answer to which leaves no room for reasonable doubt)
   2011/C 120/03
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Commissione tributaria provinciale di Taranto

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Soc Agricola Esposito srl

      Defendant: Agenzia delle Entrate — Ufficio di Taranto 2

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Commissione tributaria provinciale di Taranto — Interpretation of Article 9(1) of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33) and Articles 12 and 13 of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21) — Imposition of a government authorisation tax in the case of a telephone subscription contract — Tax not applied in the case of a prepaid telephone card — Admissibility

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The part of the fourth question concerning Commission Directive 2002/77/EC of 16 September 2002 on competition in the markets for electronic communications networks and services, and the sixth question are inadmissible.

               2.

               Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation directive) and Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework directive) do not preclude a tax such as the government concession tax.

      (1)  OJ C 24, 30.1.2010.


title: Case C-635/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul București (Romania) lodged on 4 December 2013 — SC ALKA CO SRL v Autoritatea Națională a Vămilor — Direcția Regională pentru Accize și Operațiuni Vamale Constanța, Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice a Municipiului București

text:
               8.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 39/13

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul București (Romania) lodged on 4 December 2013 — SC ALKA CO SRL v Autoritatea Națională a Vămilor — Direcția Regională pentru Accize și Operațiuni Vamale Constanța, Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice a Municipiului București
   (Case C-635/13)
   2014/C 39/21
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Tribunalul București

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: SC ALKA CO SRL

      Respondents: Autoritatea Națională a Vămilor — Direcția Regională pentru Accize și Operațiuni Vamale Constanța, Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice a Municipiului București

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must raw shelled pumpkin (vegetable) seeds, intended to undergo heat and mechanical treatment in order to be used for human consumption (as a snack-type food) be classified under heading 1207 — subheading 1207999710, or under heading 1209 — subheading 1209919010 of the combined nomenclature of goods?

               2.

               Must raw shelled pumpkin (vegetables) seeds, intended to undergo heat and mechanical treatment in order to be used for human consumption (as a snack-type food) be classified, according to the explanatory notes to the combined nomenclature, under heading 1207 — subheading 1207999710, or under heading 1209 — subheading 1209919010?

               3.

               Where there exists a contradiction between the customs classification under the Common Customs Tariff and the customs classification derived from the explanatory notes concerning the same product (raw shelled pumpkin — vegetable — seeds), which of those customs classifications applies in this case?

               4.

               In the light of Articles 109(a), 110 and 256(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/1993, (1) are special administrative procedures necessary, such as submitting an application or presenting a EUR.1 certificate to a specific authority, in order to trigger the specific effect, namely, the concession by the customs authority of the preferential tariff scheme under Article 98 of the same regulation?

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1).


title: Case T-339/14: Order of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — Kurchenko v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Ukraine — Freezing of funds — Applicant not represented by a lawyer — Applicant having ceased to reply to the Court’s requests — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               19.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 475/16

         Order of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — Kurchenko v Council
   (Case T-339/14) (1)

   ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Ukraine - Freezing of funds - Applicant not represented by a lawyer - Applicant having ceased to reply to the Court’s requests - No need to adjudicate))
   (2016/C 475/26)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Serhiy Vitaliyovych Kurchenko (Chuhuiv, Ukraine) (represented by: B. Kennelly, QC, J. Pobjoy, Barrister, M. Drury, A. Swan, and J. Binns, Solicitors)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: Á. de Elera-San Miguel Hurtado and J.-P. Hix, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Bartelt and D. Gauci, Agents)

      Re:

   Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment, first, of Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 66, p. 26) and Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 66, p. 1), and, secondly, Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/364 of 5 March 2015 amending Decision 2014/119 (OJ 2015 L 62, p. 25) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/357 of 5 March 2015 implementing Regulation No 208/2014 (OJ 2015 L 62, p. 1), in so far as those measures apply to the applicant, and, in the alternative, an application under Article 277 TFEU for a declaration of the inapplicability to the applicant of Article 1(1) of Decision 2014/119, as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/143 of 29 January 2015 amending Decision 2014/119 (OJ 2015 L 24, p. 16) and of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 208/2014, as amended by Council Regulation (EU) 2015/138 of 29 January 2015 amending Regulation No 208/2014 (OJ 2015 L 24, p. 1).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on this action.

               2.

               Mr Serhiy Vitaliyovych Kurchenko shall bear his own costs and pay those of the Council of the European Union.

               3.

               The European Commission shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 253, 4.8.2014.


title: Case C-303/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster Gerichtshof (Republic of Austria) by order of that Court of 23 July 2002 in the case of Peter Haackert against Pensionsversicherungsanstalt der Angestellten

text:
23.11.2002              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 289/9
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster                                 pay for men and women (OJ 1975 L 45, p. 19,
Gerichtshof (Republic of Austria) by order of that Court                           hereinafter ‘Directive 75/117/EEC’) and Clause 2
of 23 July 2002 in the case of Peter Haackert against                              of the Framework Agreement on part-time work
        Pensionsversicherungsanstalt der Angestellten                              concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC (herein-
                                                                                after, the ‘Framework Agreement on part-time
                                                                                work’), which was implemented by Council Directive
                           (Case C-303/02)                                         97/81/EC (OJ 1997 L 14, p. 9), and Point 9 of the
                                                                                Community Charter of the Fundamental Social
                           (2002/C 289/14)                                         Rights of Workers of 9 December 1989 to be
                                                                                construed in such a way (concept of ‘worker’) that
                                                                                constant protection is afforded even to persons such
                                                                                as the claimant in the present case who, in a
                                                                                comprehensive framework agreement on employ-
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                                ment, agree terms on pay, termination of employ-
European Communities by order of the Oberster Gerichtshof
                                                                                ment and the like but also stipulate that the amount
(Republic of Austria) (Supreme Court) of 23 July 2002,
                                                                                and positioning of working time should be governed
received at the Court Registry on 26 August 2002, for a
                                                                                by the workload and agreed by the parties in the
preliminary ruling in the case of Peter Haackert against
                                                                                light of the individual circumstances of each case?
Pensionsversicherungsanstalt der Angestellten (Salaried
Employees’ Pension Insurance Institution) on the following
question:
                                                                              (b) Does the concept of ‘worker’ within the meaning of
                                                                                Question 1(a) apply where there is a prospect of
‘Is the derogation contained in Article 7(1)(a) of Council                         work on approximately three days a week and two
Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 ( 1) on the progress-                       Saturdays in each month without any binding
ive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for                         commitment?
men and women in matters of social security to be interpreted
as being applicable to a benefit such as the early old-age
pension in connection with unemployment in respect of which                   (c)  Does the concept of ‘worker’ within the meaning of
different pensionable ages for men and for women are                               Question 1(a) apply where work is actually carried
determined in national law?’                                                       out on approximately three days a week and two
                                                                                Saturdays in each month?
( 1) OJ L 6 [1979], p. 24.
                                                                              (d) Is the Community Charter of the Fundamental Social
                                                                                Rights of Workers of 9 December 1989 legally
                                                                                binding, at least in so far as reliance is placed on it
                                                                                in the interpretation of other rules of Community
                                                                                law?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster
Gerichtshof (Supreme Court) by order of that Court of                    2.   Are Article 141 EC and Article 1 of Directive 75/117/
8 August 2002 in the case of Nicole Wippel against Peek                       EEC and Article 5 of Directive 76/207/EEC (OJ L 039,
                 & Cloppenburg GmbH & Co KG                                   p. 14, hereinafter ‘Directive 76/207/EEC’) and Clause 4 of
                                                                              the Framework Agreement on part-time work to be
                                                                              construed as meaning that it constitutes objectively
                           (Case C-313/02)                                    unjustified unequal treatment if,
                           (2002/C 289/15)
                                                                              in the case of full-time workers (approximately 60 % men
                                                                              and 40 % women), provision is made by statute or
                                                                              collective agreement for there to be rules not only on the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                        amount of working time but also (to some extent)
European Communities by order of the Oberster Gerichtshof                     regarding its positioning, the observance of which a full-
(Supreme Court) of 8 August 2002, received at the Court                       time worker is entitled to demand even in the absence of
Registry on 5 September 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the                 a contractual arrangement,
case of Nicole Wippel against Peek & Cloppenburg GmbH &
Co KG on the following questions:
                                                                              whereas there are no such rules for part-timers, the vast
1.    (a)    Are Article 141 EC and Article 1 of Council                      majority of whom are women (approximately 90 %
             Directive 75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the                  women and 10 % men), even where the contracting
             approximation of the laws of the Member States                   parties have not come, as required by statute, to a
             relating to the application of the principle of equal            contractual arrangement on this point?


title: Case C-278/08: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 March 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Die BergSpechte Outdoor Reisen und Alpinschule Edi Koblmüller GmbH v Günter Guni, trekking.at Reisen GmbH (Trade marks — Internet — Keyword advertising — Display, on the basis of keywords which are identical with or similar to trade marks, of links to sites of competitors of the proprietors of those trade marks — Directive 89/104/EEC — Article 5(1))

text:
               22.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/3

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 March 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Die BergSpechte Outdoor Reisen und Alpinschule Edi Koblmüller GmbH v Günter Guni, trekking.at Reisen GmbH
   (Case C-278/08) (1)

   (Trade marks - Internet - Keyword advertising - Display, on the basis of keywords which are identical with or similar to trade marks, of links to sites of competitors of the proprietors of those trade marks - Directive 89/104/EEC - Article 5(1))
   2010/C 134/03
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberster Gerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Die BergSpechte Outdoor Reisen und Alpinschule Edi Koblmüller GmbH

      Defendants: Günter Guni, trekking.at Reisen GmbH

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberster Gerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 5(1) of the First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1) — Reservation of a sign similar or identical to a trade mark with an internet search engine operator in order that, once that sign has been entered as a search term, advertising for products or services identical or similar to those for which the trade mark in question was registered appears automatically on the screen (‘keyword advertising’) — Classification of that utilisation of the trade mark as a use which its proprietor is entitled to prevent

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 5(1) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that the proprietor of a trade mark is entitled to prohibit an advertiser from advertising, on the basis of a keyword identical with or similar to that trade mark which that advertiser has, without the consent of that proprietor, selected in connection with an internet referencing service, goods or services identical with those for which that mark is registered, in the case where that advertising does not enable an average internet user, or enables that user only with difficulty, to ascertain whether the goods or services referred to therein originate from the proprietor of the trade mark or by an undertaking which is economically connected to it or, on the contrary, originate from a third party.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 30.08.2008


title: Case T-487/08: Action brought on 17 November 2008 — Kureha v OHIM — Sanofi-Aventis (KREMEZIN)

text:
               24.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/32

         Action brought on 17 November 2008 — Kureha v OHIM — Sanofi-Aventis (KREMEZIN)
   (Case T-487/08)
   (2009/C 19/60)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Kureha Corp. (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: W. von der Osten-Sacken and O. Sude, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sanofi-Aventis SA (Gentilly, France)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 September 2008 in case R 1631/2007-4; and

               —

               Order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘KREMEZIN’ for goods in class 5 — application No 2 906 501

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

      Mark or sign cited: International trade mark registration No 529 937 of the word mark ‘KRENOSIN’ for goods in class 5

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Rule 19 and of Rule 20(1) of Commission Regulation No 2868/95 (1), as well as misuse of power, as the Board of Appeal wrongly considered that the other party to the proceedings before it has sufficiently proven the existence and validity of the earlier trade mark; Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) in connection with Article 43(2) and (3) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal erred in its finding that there is a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1).


title: Case T-585/14: Order of the General Court of 14 September 2015 — Slovenia v Commission (Action for annulment — Own resources of the European Union — Financial responsibility of the Member States — Obligation to pay the Commission the amount corresponding to a loss of own resources — Letter from the Commission — Act not open to challenge — Inadmissibility)

text:
               16.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 381/32

         Order of the General Court of 14 September 2015 — Slovenia v Commission
   (Case T-585/14) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Own resources of the European Union - Financial responsibility of the Member States - Obligation to pay the Commission the amount corresponding to a loss of own resources - Letter from the Commission - Act not open to challenge - Inadmissibility))
   (2015/C 381/35)
   Language of the case: Slovenian

      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Slovenia (represented by: L. Bembič, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Ondrůšek, M. Wasmeier and M. Žebre, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for the annulment of the alleged decision of the Directorate-General for Budget of the European Commission, contained in letter BUDG/B/03MV D (2014) 1782918 of 2 June 2014, in which, the latter found, first, that the Republic of Slovenia was financially responsible for the loss of traditional own resources for the budget of the European Union relating to the issue of a sugar import licence in respect of the calendar year 2011 and, second, that that Member State should make available to the EU budget an amount equivalent to the loss of traditional own resources.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               There is no need to rule on the applications for leave to intervene of the Portuguese Republic and the Kingdom of Spain.

               3.

               The Republic of Slovenia is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

               4.

               The Republic of Slovenia, the Commission, the Portuguese Republic and the Kingdom of Spain shall each bear their own costs relating to the applications for leave to intervene.

      (1)  OJ C 372, 20.10.2014.


C 71/24              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 13.3.1999
      Removal from the register of Case C-370/98 (1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-262/98 (1)
                       (1999/C 71/43)
                                                                                (1999/C 71/44)
By order of 16 December 1998 the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-370/98 (reference for
a preliminary ruling from the Immigration Appeal                    By order of 12 January 1999 the President of the Court of
Tribunal): Secretary of State for the Home Department v             Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Mustafa Saglam.                                                     removal from the register of Case C-262/98: Commission
                                                                    of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.
(1) OJ C 397, 19.12.1998.
                                                                    (1) OJ C 278, 5.9.1998.
                                                   COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                           1. There is no need to adjudicate on the application.
         (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition)
                    of 15 December 1998                             2. The defendants are to pay the costs.
in Case T-247/93: D. J. Stenhouse v Council of the
European Union and Commission of the European                       3. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
                       Communities (1)                                  Ireland is to bear its own costs.
(Action for damages Ð Non-contractual liability of the
Community Ð Milk Ð Producers having entered into                    (1) OJ C 165, 2.7.1992.
non-marketing       or    conversion     undertakings      Ð
Compensation paid during the course of proceedings Ð
            Cause not proceeding to judgment)
                       (1999/C 71/45)
               (Language of the case: English)                           ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                             (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition)
In Case T-247/93: D. J. Stenhouse, residing in Netherbury
(United Kingdom), represented by Nicholas Green,                                        of 15 December 1998
Graham Hughes and Martin Rawstorne, Barristers, and                 in Case T-277/93: John Meakin v Council of the
Bevan Ashford (Solicitors), Gotham House, Tiverton,                 European Union and Commission of the European
Devon, EX16 6LT, United Kingdom, against Council of                                         Communities (1)
the European Union (Agents: Arthur Brautigam, John
Carbery and Ann-Mara Colaert), and Commission of the                (Action for damages Ð Non-contractual liability of the
European Communities (Agents: Christopher Docksey,                  Community Ð Milk Producers having entered into
GeÂrard Rozet and Hans-Jürgen Rabe), supported by                   non-marketing       or     conversion    undertakings     Ð
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland                Compensation paid during the course of proceedings Ð
(Agent: John Colahan) Ð application for compensation                            Cause not proceeding to judgment)
pursuant to Article 178 and the second paragraph of                                         (1999/C 71/46)
Article 215 of the EC Treaty for the losses sustained by
the applicant as a result of his having been prevented from
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
marketing milk by virtue of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting general rules for
the application of the levy referred to in Article 5c of            In Case T-277/93: John Meakin, residing in Leigh (United
Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk                     Kingdom), represented by Nicholas Green, Barrister, and
products sector (OJ L 90, 1.4.1989, p. 13), as                      Bevan Ashford (Solicitors), Gotham House, Tiverton,
supplemented by         Commission Regulation (EEC)                 Devon, EX16 6LT, United Kingdom, against Council of
No 1371/84 of 16 May 1984 (OJ L 132, 18.5.1984, p. 11               the European Union (Agents: Arthur Brautigam, John
Ð the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended             Carbery and Ann-Mara Colaert), and Commission of the
Composition), composed of R. M. Moura Ramos,                        European Communities (Agents: Christopher Docksey and
President of the Chamber, R. García-Valdecasas, V. Tiili, P.        Hans-Jürgen Rabe) Ð application for compensation
Lindh and P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made             pursuant to Article 178 and the second paragraph of
an order on 15 December 1998, the operative part of                 Article 215 of the EC Treaty for the losses sustained by
which is as follows:                                                the applicant as a result of his having been prevented from


title: Case C-21/16: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 9 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa) — Portugal) — Euro Tyre BV v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira (Reference for a preliminary ruling — VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 131 and 138 — Preconditions for the exemption of an intra-Community supply — VAT Information Exchange System (VIES) — Purchaser’s failure to register — Refusal to grant the exemption — Whether permissible)

text:
               3.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/21

         Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 9 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa) — Portugal) — Euro Tyre BV v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira
   (Case C-21/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 131 and 138 - Preconditions for the exemption of an intra-Community supply - VAT Information Exchange System (VIES) - Purchaser’s failure to register - Refusal to grant the exemption - Whether permissible))
   (2017/C 104/30)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Euro Tyre BV

      Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 131 and Article 138(1) of the Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, must be interpreted as precluding the tax authority of a Member State from refusing to exempt an intra-Community supply from value added tax on the sole ground that, at the time of that supply, the purchaser domiciled in the territory of the Member State of destination and who was in possession of a valid identification number for the purposes of value added tax in that Member State is neither registered in the Value Added Tax Information Exchange System nor comes under a system of taxation on intra-Community acquisitions of goods, where there is no sound evidence pointing to the existence of fraud and it is established that the basic conditions of the exemption are fulfilled. In that case, Article 138(1) of that directive, interpreted in the light of the principle of proportionality, also precludes such refusal where the vendor was aware of the circumstances of the situation of the purchaser with regard to the application of VAT and was convinced that subsequently the purchaser would be registered as an intra-Community operator with retroactive effect.

      (1)  OJ C 118, 4.4.2016.


title: Case F-96/14: Action brought on 17 September 2014  — ZZ and ZZ v Commission

text:
               12.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/49

         Action brought on 17 September 2014 — ZZ and ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-96/14)
   (2015/C 007/58)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: ZZ and ZZ (represented by: J. Lombaert and A. Surny, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision of the Commission concerning retroactive revision of the survivors’ pensions awarded to the applicants and ordering repayment of the excess amounts which were paid without entitlement.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (PMO) of 22 November 2013;

               —

               rule that the amount incorrectly allocated to the applicants will not be recoverable;

               —

               rule that the contested decision will take effect only on the first day of the following month, which is 1 December 2013, with respect to the changes to the amount of the survivors’ and orphans’ pensions awarded to the applicants.


title: Case C-112/10: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 November 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie, Belgium) — Procureur-generaal bij het Hof van Beroep te Antwerpen v Zaza Retail BV (Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 — Insolvency proceedings — Opening of territorial insolvency proceedings — Conditions laid down by the applicable national law preventing the opening of main insolvency proceedings — Creditor empowered to request the opening of territorial insolvency proceedings)

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/7

      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 November 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie, Belgium) — Procureur-generaal bij het Hof van Beroep te Antwerpen v Zaza Retail BV
      (Case C-112/10) (1)

      (Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 - Insolvency proceedings - Opening of territorial insolvency proceedings - Conditions laid down by the applicable national law preventing the opening of main insolvency proceedings - Creditor empowered to request the opening of territorial insolvency proceedings)
      (2012/C 25/11)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      Hof van Cassatie van België

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Procureur-generaal bij het Hof van Beroep te Antwerpen

         Defendant: Zaza Retail BV

         Re:

      Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hof van Cassatie van België — Interpretation of Article 3(4)(a) and (b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings (OJ 2000 L 160, p. 1) — International jurisdiction to open insolvency proceedings — Jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State in which the debtor does not have the centre of its main interests but in which it does have one of its establishments — Concepts of ‘conditions laid down’ and of ‘creditor’.

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  The expression ‘conditions laid down’ in Article 3(4)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings, which refers to conditions, which, under the law of the Member State where the debtor has the centre of its main interests, prevent the opening of main insolvency proceedings in that State, must be interpreted as not referring to conditions excluding particular persons from the category of persons empowered to request the opening of such proceedings.

                  2.

                  The term ‘creditor’ in Article 3(4)(b) of the Regulation, which is used to designate the persons empowered to request the opening of territorial insolvency proceedings, must be interpreted as not including an authority of a Member State whose task under the national law of that State is to act in the public interest, but which does not intervene as a creditor, or in the name or on behalf of those creditors.

         (1)  OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.


C 55/42                 EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                     8.3.2003
as the Commission changed the legal assessment of the                       Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-100/02 and
infringements without offering the applicant the possibility of                                        T-102/02 (1)
responding to it during the administrative proceedings.
                                                                                (2003/C 55/100)
( 1) EEC Council: Regulation No 17: First Regulation implementing                              (Language of the Case: English)
     Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty (OJ 13 of 21.2.1962, p. 204).
                                                                            By order of 2 December 2002 the President of the Fifth
                                                                            Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                            Communities ordered the removal from the register of Joined
                                                                            Cases T-100/02 and T-102/02: EVC International N.V. v
                                                                            Commission of the European Communities.
         Removal from the register of Case T-96/01 (1)
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 156 of 29.06.2002.
                           (2003/C 55/98)
                     (Language of the Case: Greek)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-170/02 (1)
By order of 13 December 2002 the President of the Second
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                                               (2003/C 55/101)
Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
T-96/01: Rodolfos Maslias v European Parliament.                                                (Language of the Case: French)
( 1) OJ C 200 of 14.07.2001.
                                                                            By order of 6 December 2002 the President of the Second
                                                                            Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                            Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                            T-170/02: Maria Rosaria Ragazzini v European Parliament.
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 202 of 24.08.2002.
Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-99/02 and
                             T-101/02 ( 1)
                           (2003/C 55/99)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-295/02 ( 1).
                    (Language of the Case: English)
                                                                                (2003/C 55/102)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: Dutch)
By order of 2 December 2002 the President of the Fifth
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities ordered the removal from the register of Joined                 By order of 13 December 2002 the President of the Third
Cases T-99/02 and T-101/02: Ineos N.V. v Commission of the                  Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
European Communities.                                                       Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                            T-295/02: Koninklijke BAM NBM N.V. v Commission of the
( 1) OJ C 156 of 29.06.2002.                                                European Communities.
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 289 of 23.11.2002.


title: Case T-280/08: Order of the Court of First Instance of 1 April 2009 — Perry v Commission (Action for damages — Limitation period — Admissibility)

text:
               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/42

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 1 April 2009 — Perry v Commission
   (Case T-280/08) (1)

   (Action for damages - Limitation period - Admissibility)
   2009/C 141/87
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Claude Perry (Paris, France) (represented by: J. Culioli, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J.-P. Keppenne and P. van Nuffel, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for damages seeking compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of allegations of misuse of Community subsidies in the performance of certain contracts concluded by the Commission with the applicant’s companies.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Mr Claude Perry is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 11.10.2008.


title: Case C-480/99 P: Appeal brought on 20 December 1999 by Gerry Plant and 16 others against the order made on 29 September 1999 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in joined cases T-148/98 between J.G. Evans and others and the Commission of the European Communities and T-162/98 between South Wales Small Mines Association and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
4.3.2000               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 63/13
The Commission considers that the list in the annex to                  Appeal brought on 20 December 1999 by Gerry Plant
Directive 93/13 is designed to establish a functioning internal         and 16 others against the order made on 29 September
market and to improve consumer protection, based inter alia             1999 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First
on information for consumers. This is to be achieved by                 Instance of the European Communities in joined cases
amplifying and specifying the general criteria indicated in             T-148/98 between J.G. Evans and others and the Com-
Article 3(1) of the Directive. This increases legal certainty for       mission of the European Communities and T-162/98
both Swedish and foreign economic agents and consumers                  between South Wales Small Mines Association and the
whilst at the same time the various authorities apply the law                    Commission of the European Communities
in a more uniform way. The Commission also believes that the
list is of invaluable assistance for traders when they draw up
their standard terms and conditions and that the number of                                      (Case C-480/99 P)
possible disputes can be reduced in this way. In the Com-
mission’s view, these aims, and the particular argument                                            (2000/C 63/26)
concerning clarity and information, can only be achieved if
the list in the annex to the Directive is made generally known
by being published as a part of the legal act by which the              An appeal against the order made on 29 September by the
directive is implemented.                                               Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                        Communities in joined cases T-148/98 (1) between J.G. Evans
                                                                        and others and the Commission of the European Communities
(1) OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.                                                and T-162/ 98 (2) between South Wales Small Mines Associ-
                                                                        ation and the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                        was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                        Communities on 20 December 1999 by Gerry Plant and
                                                                        16 others, established in the United Kingdom, represented by
                                                                        Barbara Hewson, of the Bar of England and Wales, and Thomas
                                                                        Graham, Solicitors, with an address for service in Luxembourg
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht                 at the Chambers of Nathan & Noesen, 18, rue des Glacis.
Düsseldorf by order of that court of 8 December 1999 in
the case of Vobis Microcomputer AG against Haupt-
                         zollamt Aachen                                 The Appellants claim:
                         (Case C-479/99)                                1. that the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                            29 September 1999 be set aside;
                          (2000/C 63/25)
                                                                        2. that the Application to annul is admissible and that the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      Court of First Instance should deal with the substance of
European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht Düssel-                  the Application;
dorf (Düsseldorf Finance Court) of 8 December 1999, received
at the Court Registry on 16 December 1999, for a preliminary
                                                                        3. alternatively, that the issue of admissibility should be
ruling in the case of Vobis Microcomputer AG against
                                                                            referred back to a freshly constituted Court of First
Hauptzollamt Aachen on the following questions:
                                                                            Instance, and that the Appellants should first have the
1.      Is the Combined Nomenclature, as amended by Annex I                 opportunity to have knowledge of, and to comment on,
to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1153/97 of 24 June                         all evidence adduced or observations filed by SWSMA;
1997 (1) amending Annex 1 to Council Regulation (EEC)
No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on            4. that the Commission pay the costs of this appeal and the
the Common Customs Tariff, to be interpreted as meaning that                application below.
electronic assemblies which enable automatic data-processing
equipment and units thereof to process audio signals (sound
cards) must be classified under heading 8471, 8473 or 8543?
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
2.      Are Commission Regulation (EC) No 1153/97 of 24 June
1997 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 2086/97 of
4 November 1997 (2) amending Annex I to Council Regulation              The Appellants bring this appeal against the contested order
(EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature             on the basis of a breach of the procedure before the Court of
and on the Common Customs Tariff valid in so far as, in                 First Instance which adversely affects the interest of the
accordance with them, the sound cards described at 1 are                Appellants and/or infringements of Community law by the
covered by heading 8543 of the Combined Nomenclature?                   Court of First Instance, in particular:
                                                                        1. The Court of First Instance failed to apply the relevant law
(1) OJ 1997 L 168, p. 35.
(2) OJ 1997 L 312, p. 1.
                                                                            in that it failed to find that the Appellants were concerned
                                                                            by the Commission’s decision under Article 33 ECSC and
                                                                            were entitled to notification of the Decision as persons
                                                                            concerned by the Decision under Article 15 ECSC;
 ---pagebreak--- C 63/14                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       4.3.2000
2. The Court of First Instance erred in law in failing to find              the legal categorisation of the facts). In any event, the
     that the Commission should have notified the Appellants                Commission fails entirely to explain why it concluded that
     of its Decision when they formally requested notification              the mere finding that an undertaking is public in nature
     on 24 August 1998;                                                     suffices to establish that resources made available within
                                                                            the meaning of Article 87 of the Treaty must be public in
3. The Appellants’ rights of defence were infringed during                  origin (breach of the obligation to state reasons). Finally,
     the proceedings before the Court of First Instance, consti-            the Commission did not even examine whether or not the
     tuting a breach of procedure;                                          measures which it challenged were attributable to the State
                                                                            (error of law).
4. The Court of First Instance’s decision manifestly distorted
     the clear sense of the evidence, and amounted to an
     incorrect legal assessment of the facts.
                                                                         — (In the alternative): manifest error of assessment in
                                                                            determining whether SBT and Altus had acted prudently
(1) OJ C 358 of 21.11.1998, p. 19.                                          in providing funds to Stardust: it was not until the close of
(2) OJ C 174 of 19.6.1999, p. 6.                                            the accounts on 30 June 1995, when it was confirmed that
                                                                            there had been a considerable loss (FRF 362 million)
                                                                            attributable to the discovery and inclusion of the conse-
                                                                            quences of the fraudulent activities of the former directors,
                                                                            that the financial commitment made by SBT/Altus turned
                                                                            out to be of the disproportionate nature criticised by
                                                                            the Commission. Prior to that date, however, Stardust’s
                                                                            accounts reflected a situation which was acceptable for a
Action brought on 20 December 1999 by the French                            company just starting up. The Commission errs in refusing
Republic against the Commission of the European Com-                        to take account of the various cases of fraud in order to
                             munities                                       determine whether or not SBT acted prudently, on the
                                                                            ground in particular that, pending the decisions of the
                                                                            national courts seised of those cases, it cannot comment
                         (Case C-482/99)                                    on them.
                          (2000/C 63/27)
                                                                         — Internal contradictions in the grounds of the contested
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                   decision, particularly with regard to the identification of
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                the provider of the aid, since the Commission at times
Communities on 20 December 1999 by the French Republic,                     focuses its attention on Crédit Lyonnais and the CDR
represented by Kareen Rispal-Bellanger and Frédérik Million,                jointly, at times on Crédit Lyonnais alone, and at times on
acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at              the CDR alone. The Commission’s entire reasoning appears
the French Embassy, 8B Boulevard Joseph II.                                 to be based on the supposition that the aid is attributable
                                                                            in its entirety to Crédit Lyonnais, including recapitalisations
The French Republic claims that the Court should:                           subsequent to debt restructuring which were only deferred
                                                                            to the charge of the CDR, whereas the actual operative
— Annul in its entirety the decision of 8 September 1999                    part of the decision, in contrast, focuses on the aid from
     adopted by the Commission of the European Communities                  the CDR to Stardust and orders it to be recovered.
     on the basis of Articles 87 EC and 88 EC concerning aid
     for the Stardust Marine undertaking;
                                                                         — Infringement of the principle of legal certainty: the contest-
— Order the Commission to pay the costs.                                    ed decision clearly overlooks important aspects of the
                                                                            Commission’s previous decisions on aid granted to Crédit
                                                                            Lyonnais. First, the Commission’s approach in the contest-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                             ed decision has the effect of excluding the possibility
                                                                            for the CDR to dispose of assets (if appropriate, after
— Breach of Article 87(1) EC: the contested decision miscon-                recapitalisation), even if this option is, as in the case of
     strues the concept of public resources inasmuch as the                 Stardust, the most rational from the economic point of
     Commission takes the view therein that the ostensibly                  view and thus corresponds to the task conferred on it.
     public nature of the resources made available by subsidia-             Second, the Commission refuses to accord any significance
     ries and subsubsidiaries of Crédit Lyonnais (Altus Finance             whatever to the care with which the CDR acted.
     and SBT) is a matter of fact not open to challenge. The
     public nature of the resources of an undertaking cannot be
     inferred merely from the fact that the undertaking belongs
     to the public sector (error of law). In this case, SBT and          — Breach of the French Government’s rights of defence:
     Altus (subsidiaries of Crédit Lyonnais) did not, at the time           within the context of the written administrative procedure,
     of the interventions for which they are criticised, have any           the Commission at no time indicated its intention to apply
     budgetary allocations or any other State resources (error in           the notion of continuity of State action, that is to say, to


title: Case C-391/13 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 July 2014  — Hellenic Republic v European Commission (Appeal — EAGGF, EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from funding from the European Union — Olive oil — Arable crops — Manifest error of assessment — Increase in the flat-rate correction due to the recurrence of failure — Impact of CAP reform on the flat-rate correction — Proportionality — Nature of expenditure for the establishment of the olive cultivation GIS)

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/19

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 July 2014 — Hellenic Republic v European Commission
   (Case C-391/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - EAGGF, EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from funding from the European Union - Olive oil - Arable crops - Manifest error of assessment - Increase in the flat-rate correction due to the recurrence of failure - Impact of CAP reform on the flat-rate correction - Proportionality - Nature of expenditure for the establishment of the olive cultivation GIS))
   2014/C 315/28
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Appellant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: I. Chaklias, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Marcoulli and D. Tryantafyllou, Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.


title: Case T-299/17: Action brought on 16 May 2017 — Sata v EUIPO — Zhejiang Rongpeng Air Tools (1000)

text:
               17.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 231/43

         Action brought on 16 May 2017 — Sata v EUIPO — Zhejiang Rongpeng Air Tools (1000)
   (Case T-299/17)
   (2017/C 231/54)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Sata GmbH & Co. KG (Kornwestheim, Germany) (represented by: M.-C. Simon, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Zhejiang Rongpeng Air Tools Co. Ltd (Pengjie Town, China)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: The sign ‘1000’ — EU trade mark No 12 333 531

      Procedure before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 March 2017 in Case R 650/2016-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs;

               —

               in the event that the respondent before the Board of Appeal decides to intervene in the proceedings, order that intervener to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

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

               —

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

               —

               Infringement of the principle of equal treatment and the principle of sound administration.


title: Case T-376/02: Action brought on 9 December 2002 by "O" against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
22.2.2003              EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 44/37
Pleas in law and main arguments                                             for the recruitment of administrators (Grade A 7/A 6) in the
                                                                            field of External Relations and Management of Aid to Third
                                                                            Countries, selecting ‘External Relations’, challenges the decision
The applicant challenges the decision of the appointing                     of the Commission, the examining body, to assess his test (e)
authority not to grant his request that the judgment of                     — written test — at one point below that necessary (19/40)
the Tribunal de Paix de Luxembourg (Magistrates’ Court,                     for admission to the oral test.
Luxembourg) of 26 November 1998 be correctly implemented
and that, consequently, the termination of attachment which
was ordered, with effect from 11 November 1998, in respect
of sums deducted by way of attachment from the salary of an                 In support of his claims the applicant alleges:
official of the defendant institution take effect on that date and
not in March 1998.                                                          —     Misuse of powers, insufficient statement of reasons and
                                                                                breach of the rights of the defence as regards the refusal
                                                                                to give him information as to the marking criteria let
In support of his claims, the applicant pleads:                                   alone the marking procedure and the marks of the
                                                                                individual examiners.
—     the principle under which the institutions are bound by a
      duty to cooperate in good faith with national institutions;
                                                                            —     Breach of Article 3 of the Staff Regulations, insufficient
—     that the attachment procedure is entirely legal as regards                  statement of reasons and breach of the rights of the
      Community law.                                                              defence as regards the refusal to provide information as
                                                                                to the linguistic knowledge of the third examiner.
                                                                            —     Breach of the principle of equal treatment in the test and
                                                                                of the principle of sound administration. In that respect
                                                                                it is stated that the material distributed to the candidates
                                                                                in Italian was not prepared with sufficient care. It should
Action brought on 17 December 2002 by Alessandro                                  also be noted that there was inconsistency in the grounds
Cavallaro against the Commission of the European Com-                             relating to the interpretation of the ‘instructions to
                             munities                                             candidates’.
                         (Case T-375/02)                                    —     Clear error of fact in the marking of the first answer in
                                                                                written test (e) of the competition.
                         (2003/C 44/70)
                                                                            —     Misrepresentation of the truth, illogicality and contradic-
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                               tory grounds as regards the marking of the second answer
                                                                                in written test (e) of the competition.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 17 December 2002 by Alessandro
Cavallaro, represented by C. Forte, lawyer.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                            Action brought on 9 December 2002 by ‘O’ against the
—     annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of                               Commission of the European Communities
      11 September 2002 to give him insufficient marks
      for written test (e) of the Open Competition for the
      recruitment of administrators (Grade A 7/A 6) COM/A/                                            (Case T-376/02)
      6/01 and, in consequence, not to admit him to the oral
      tests in that competition;
                                                                                (2003/C 44/71)
—     annul the subsequent stages of that competition, in so far
      as is necessary to restore the applicant’s rights;
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                             An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                            ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                            European Communities on 9 December 2002 by ‘O’, represent-
The applicant in this case, who had applied to take Open                    ed by Jean Van Rossum, Lawyer, with an address for service in
Competition COM/A/6/01 for the constitution of a reserve list               Luxembourg.
 ---pagebreak--- C 44/38               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                        22.2.2003
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               Pleas in law and main arguments
—     annul the Commission’s decision of 14 January 2002 to
      retire the applicant on an invalidity pension set in                The applicant is an official of the Commission and worked in
      accordance with the third paragraph of Article 78 of the            the Berlaymont building, where he was exposed to asbestos.
      Staff Regulations;                                                  In 2001 the applicant asked to be given an invalidity pension
                                                                          on the basis of Article 78 of the Staff Regulations. That request
—     order the Commission of the European Communities to                 was refused by the Commission.
      pay the costs.
                                                                          The applicant claims, first, that in rejecting his complaint the
                                                                          Commission misconstrued the facts which led to the appli-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           cant’s complaining about the malfunctioning of the Invalidity
                                                                          Committee as a result of linguistic problems.
The applicant is an official of the Commission. The contested
decision forced the applicant into retirement with the benefit            The applicant also alleges that the principles of sound adminis-
of an invalidity pension set in accordance with the third                 tration and the administration’s duty to have regard to the
paragraph of Article 78 of the Staff Regulations.                         welfare of officials were breached, as were the principle of the
                                                                          protection of legitimate expectations, the rights of the defence
                                                                          and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
In support of his application, the applicant alleged infringe-            The applicant complains of irregularities in the procedure
ment of Article 7 of Annex II to the Staff Regulations and                before the Invalidity Committee such as the abandonment of
infringement of the provisions relating to the operation of               scheduled medical examinations, the problem of communi-
the Invalidity Committees. According to the applicant, the                cation and the absence of a lawyer at the meeting of the
Invalidity Committee was not properly formed. The applicant               Invalidity Committee.
also argues a breach of the duty to state reasons.
Action brought on 17 December 2002 by ‘P’ against the                     Action brought on 18 December 2002 by Antonio Andol-
         Commission of the European Communities                            fi against the Commission of the European Communities
                         (Case T-377/02)                                                          (Case T-379/02)
                         (2003/C 44/72)                                                            (2003/C 44/73)
                   (Language of the case: French)                                            (Language of the case: Italian)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 17 December 2002 by ‘P’, rep-
                                                                          European Communities on 18 December 2002 by Antonio
resented by Juan Ramon Iturriagagoitiia, lawyer.
                                                                          Andolfi, represented by Salvatore Amato, Lawyer.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the Commission’s decision of 30 September 2002
      replying to the complaint lodged on 5 July 2002 by the              —     annul the contested provision;
      applicant on the basis of Article 90 of the Staff Regu-
      lations of Officials and Other Servants of the European             —     order the European Economic Community to compensate
      Communities;                                                              the damages suffered and to be suffered by Seven Stars
                                                                                Pictures and Phoenix European S.r.l., to be liquidated in
—     order the defendant to pay all the costs of the proceedings.              the course of the proceedings, together with clerical costs.


title: Case C-414/14 P: Appeal brought on 2 September 2014 by Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 26 June 2014 in Case T-541/11: Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               15.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 198/16

         Appeal brought on 2 September 2014 by Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 26 June 2014 in Case T-541/11: Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-414/14 P)
   (2015/C 198/21)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian (represented by: G. Macias Bonilla, G. Marín Raigal, P. López Ronda, lawyers)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Micael Gulbenkian
   By order of 26 February 2015 the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) has dismissed the appeal and ordered Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian to bear its own costs.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 29 October 1998 in Case C-114/97: Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Free movement of workers - Freedom of establishment - Freedom to provide services - Private security activities - Nationality conditions)

text:
19.12.98              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 397/11
Article 39 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 822/87, in                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Regions 3 and 6 (OJ L 58, 2.3.1994, p. 2), as amended by
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
Commission Regulation (EC) No 610/94 of 18 March
1994 (OJ L 77, 19.3.1994, p. 12), of Article 39(1) and (4)                                 of 29 October 1998
of Council Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 of 16 March
1987 on the common organisation of the market in wine                      in Case C-114/97: Commission of the European
(OJ L 84, 27.3.1987, p. 1), of the fourth indent of                              Communities v. Kingdom of Spain (1)
Article 4(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 441/88
                                                                    (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations Ð Free
of 17 February 1988 laying down detailed rules for
                                                                    movement of workers Ð Freedom of establishment Ð
applying compulsory distillation as referred to in Article 39
                                                                    Freedom to provide services Ð Private security activities
of Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 (OJ L 45, 18.2.1988,
                                                                                Ð Nationality conditions)
p. 15), and of Article 1(1) of Commission Regulation (EC)
No 3151/94 of 21 December 1994 introducing a further                                          (98/C 397/17)
derogation from the detailed rules for the delivery by
producers of the table wine they are required to deliver for
compulsory distillation in respect of the 1993/1994 wine
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
year (OJ L 332, 22.12.1994, p. 32) Ð the Court (Fifth
Chamber), composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur), President
of the First Chamber, acting as President of the Fifth
Chamber, C. Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward, L. Sevón and                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
M. Wathelet, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate-General; D.                          published in the European Court Reports)
Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 October 1998, in
which it has ruled:
                                                                    In Case C-114/97: Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities (Agents: Antonio Caeiro and Fernando
                                                                    Castillo de la Torre) v. Kingdom of Spain (Agent: Santiago
Examination of the questions raised has disclosed no                Ortiz Vaamonde) Ð application for a declaration that, by
factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of:                 maintaining in force Articles 7, 8 and 10 of Law No 23/
                                                                    1992 of 30 July 1992, in so far as those provisions make
                                                                    the grant of authorisation to carry on private security
                                                                    activities, in the case of security companies, subject to the
Ð the fourth indent of Article 1(3) of Commission
                                                                    requirement of being constituted in Spain and the
    Regulation (EC) No 343/94 of 15 February 1994
                                                                    requirement that their directors and managers should
    opening compulsory distillation as provided for in
                                                                    reside in Spain and the requirement that security staff
    Article 39 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 822/87
                                                                    should possess Spanish nationality, the Kingdom of Spain
    and derogating for the 1993/1994 wine year from
                                                                    has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty, in
    certain detailed rules for the application thereof;
                                                                    particular Articles 48, 52 and 59 Ð the Court (Fifth
                                                                    Chamber), composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur), President
                                                                    of the First Chamber, acting as President of the Fifth
Ð Article 1(1)(c) and (2) of Commission Regulation (EC)             Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann, L.
    No 465/94 of 1 March 1994 fixing for the 1993/1994              Sevón and M. Wathelet, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate-
    wine year the percentages of table wine production to           General; R. Grass, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
    be delivered for compulsory distillation as provided            given a judgment on 29 October 1998, in which it:
    for in Article 39 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 822/
    87, in Regions 3 and 6, as amended by Commission
    Regulation (EC) No 610/94 of 18 March 1994;                     1. Declares that, by maintaining in force Articles 7, 8
                                                                         and 10 of Law No 23/1992 of 30 July 1992, in so far
                                                                         as those provisions make the grant of authorisation to
Ð Article 39(1) and (4) of Council Regulation (EEC)                      carry on private security activities, in the case of
    No 822/87 of 16 March 1987 on the common                             security companies, subject to the requirement of
    organisation of the market in wine; or                               being constituted in Spain and the requirement that
                                                                         their directors and managers should reside in Spain
                                                                         and the requirement that security staff should possess
                                                                         Spanish nationality, the Kingdom of Spain has failed
Ð the fourth indent of Article 4(2) of Commission                        to fulfil its obligations under Articles 48, 52 and 59 of
    Regulation (EEC) No 441/88 of 17 February 1988                       the EC Treaty;
    laying down detailed rules for applying compulsory
    distillation as referred to in Article 39 of Regulation
    (EEC) No 822/87.                                                2. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 40, 8.2.1997.                                              (1) OJ C 166, 31.5.1997.