title: Case F-19/16: Action brought on 5 April 2016 – ZZ v EIB

text:
               4.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/52

         Action brought on 5 April 2016 – ZZ v EIB
   (Case F-19/16)
   (2016/C 243/57)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: A. Senes et L. Payot, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Investment Bank (EIB)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Reimburse the applicant, with interest, for the alleged loss of her pensionable rights or, in the alternative, reinstate, with interest, the pensionable rights allegedly lost by her in the national system, when those rights were transferred to the defendant’s pension scheme.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Condemn the European Investment Bank to restore the prejudice that the applicant has suffered for the loss of her pensionable rights in the amount of EUR 55 641,17, plus interest accrued at the applicable rate calculated retroactively, as if the original transfer was done for the full amount of her pensionable rights existing with Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale, when the original request of transfer was done;

               —

               In the alternative, condemn EIB to perform the immediate return in pensionable months to ZZ of EUR 55 641,17, plus interest accrued at the applicable rate calculated retroactively as if the original transfer was done for the full amount of her pension rights existing with Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale. In this case, it is suggested, calculations should be made under article 71.1.1. of the EIB's Staff Pension Scheme Regulations;

               —

               condemn EIB to support all such further relief as the Tribunal considers just;

               —

               condemn EIB to support the costs of the present proceedings, which are estimated as EUR 3 000.


title: Case C-252/09: Order of the President of the Court of 19 November 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

text:
               27.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/29

         Order of the President of the Court of 19 November 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-252/09) (1)

   2010/C 51/56

      Language of the case: Portuguese

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

      (1)  OJ C 205, 29.8.2009.


title: Case C-312/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia (Romania) lodged on 7 June 2013 — Claudiu Roșu v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice a Județului Sibiu — Activitatea de Inspecție Fiscală

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 226/7

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia (Romania) lodged on 7 June 2013 — Claudiu Roșu v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice a Județului Sibiu — Activitatea de Inspecție Fiscală
   (Case C-312/13)
   (2013/C 226/11)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Claudiu Roșu

      Defendant: Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice a Județului Sibiu — Activitatea de Inspecție Fiscală

      Question referred

   If a vendor has been reclassified as a taxable person for VAT purposes and the consideration for (price of) the supply of the immovable property has been determined by the parties, without any reference to VAT, must Articles 73 and 78 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that the taxable amount is:

               (a)

               the consideration for (price of) the supply of the property determined by the parties, less the rate of VAT, or

               (b)

               the consideration for (price of) the supply of the property agreed by the parties?

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


title: Action brought on 5 September 1996 by the European Association of Craft, Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises against the Council of the European Union (Case T-135/96)

text:
26 . 10 . 96           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 318 /21
Community, as the defendant has done with regard to                        small and medium-sized undertakings referred to in
travelling time, constitutes discrimination against officials              Article 2 ( 2 ) of the Agreement on social policy,
serving in a third country. He notes that, in the defendant's
view, an official who is entitled to reimbursement of the cost
of an air ticket on the ground that the distance between his          — order the Council to pay the costs .
place of employment and his place of origin is more than
500 kilometres, whether he is serving in a third country or
within the Community, cannot be allowed more than two                 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
days travelling time unless he produces evidence that he
needs additional time, whereas , in the applicant's view, the         This action concerns the first Directive to implement an
two situations are fundamentally different. The two days'             agreement concluded by management and labour at
travelling time given to officials serving in the Community is        Community level on the basis of the Agreement on social
intended for officials whose place of employment is a few             policy annexed to the Protocol on social policy annexed to
hundred kilometres from their place of origin, whereas                the Treaty of Rome as amended by the Maastricht Treaty .
officials serving in third countries are often several thousand       The applicant, an employers ' association combining small
kilometres from their place of origin, in local conditions            and medium-sized undertakings at European level ,
which make journeys longer and more arduous .                         challenges that Directive , in so far as it concerns those
                                                                      undertakings .
Last, the applicant claims that the directive adopted on
21 December 1994 is unlawful, in that it was adopted
without prior consultation of the joint committees in                 As early as 1983 the Commission drew up a proposal for a
accordance with Article 1 10 of the Staff Regulations, and in         Directive on parental leave and leave for family reasons .
that it contains no valid statement of the reasons on which it        When that proposal was blocked , the Commission decided
is based but does contain numerous instances of                       in January 1995 to make use in this matter of the new
inconsistency,         inaccuracy,        imprecision       and       procedure provided for in the Agreement on social policy .
contradictions .                                                      During the initial consultations with management and
                                                                      labour, in accordance with Article 3 ( 2 ) of the Agreement,
                                                                      the applicant was thus consulted, together with other
                                                                      organizations . It was, by contrast, systematically excluded
                                                                      from the negotiations which led to the adoption of the
                                                                      measure, even though it had on several occasions expressed
                                                                      the wish to be included and given reasons why it should
Action brought on 5 September 1996 by the European                    be .
 Association of Craft, Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises
          against the Council of the European Union
                                                                      The applicant considers that the contested act is of direct
                          Case T-135 /96 )                            and individual concern to it. It observes in that respect that
                          ( 96/C 318/38 )                             Article 2 ( 2 ) of the Agreement on social policy expressly
                                                                      refers to the need not to hold back the creation and
                                                                      development of small and medium-sized undertakings .
                (Language of the case: French)                        More specifically, the question of parental leave is of crucial
                                                                       importance for small and medium-sized undertakings .
 An action against the Council of the European Union was
 brought before the Court of First Instance of the European           The applicant submits that clause 2 ( 3 ) ( f) of the framework
 Communities on 5 September 1996 by the European                       Agreement, by providing merely for the possibility of
 Association of Craft, Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises ,            authorizing special arrangements to meet the operational
 established at Brussels, represented by Francis Herbert, of           and organizational requirements of small undertakings, fails
 the Brussels Bar, and Genevieve Tuts , of the Liege Bar, with         to satisfy the requirement of the said Article 2 ( 2 ), in that an
 an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of               obligation has become a possibility and medium-sized
 Carlos Zeyen, 67 rue Ermesinde .                                      undertakings are not mentioned . The applicant states in this
                                                                       respect that by letter of 13 December 1 995 it made criticisms
 The applicant claims that the Court should :                          of the framework Agreement, concentrating on the
                                                                       following three points : the failure to extend to
     primarily:                                                        medium-sized undertakings the possibility of postponing
                                                                       parental leave for reasons related to the undertaking;
 — annul , pursuant to Article 173 of the EC Treaty, Council           inclusion of a system of exceptions to protection against
     Directive 96/34/EC of 3 June 1996 on the framework                dismissal in cases where the employer's economic interests
     agreement on parental leave concluded by Unice, CEEP              are prejudiced by maintaining the contract of employment
     and the ETUC (').                                                 during and after parental leave ; and the need, with respect to
                                                                       the craft sector, to limit the right to parental leave to the
     in the alternative :                                              period of infancy.
 — annul , pursuant to Article 173 of the EC Treaty, the said          The applicant pleads breach of the principle of equality, of
     Directive with respect solely to its application to the           Articles 2 ( 2 ), 3 ( 3 ) and 4 of the Agreement on social policy,
 ---pagebreak--- No C 318/22          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   26 . 10 . 96
and of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality           In the applicant's opinion, that explanation does not
referred to in the 12th recital in the preamble to the              disclose the considerations of fact and law on which the
contested Directive . The applicant further claims that the         Commission based its decision . Specifically, the
principle patere legem quam ipse fecisti has been infringed,        Commission failed to consider the significance of the fact
in that the Commission itself, in its communication of              that the information it decided to divulge constituted
14 December 1993 concerning the application of the                  ' business secrets '.
Protocol on social policy, recognized the applicant as a
representative organization .
                                                                    Action brought on 9 September 1996 by Valio Ltd against
Action brought on 6 September 1996 by Automobiles                          the Commission of the European Communities
Peugeot SA against the Commission of the European
                         Communities                                                       ( Case T-l 37/96
                      ( Case T-136/96 )                                                      ( 96/C 318/40 )
                        ( 96/C 318/39
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                    An action against the Commission of the European
An action against the Commission of the European                    Communities was brought before the Court of First
Communities was brought before the Court of First                   Instance of the European Communities on 9 September
Instance of the European Communities on 6 September                 1996 by Valio Ltd , represented by Francis Herbert and
1996 by Automobiles Peugeot SA, established at Paris,               Daniel M. Tomasevic , of the Brussels Bar, of Loeff Claesy
represented by Xavier de Roux, of the Paris Bar, with an            Verbeke with an adress for service in Luxembourg at the
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                Chambers of Carlos Zeyen , 67 rue Ermesinde, L-1050
Jacques Loesch, 1 1 rue Goethe .                                    Luxembourg .
The applicant claims that the Court should :                        The applicant claims that the Court should :
— annul the Commission's decision of 19 July 1996
    concerning complaints 35.988 , 35.989 , 35.990 and              — annul the decision contained in a letter adressed by the
    35.991 ,                                                             Commission to the Finnish Permanent Representative to
                                                                        the European Unions ( BI.4 D(96 ) SP/cd/501 ) in so far as
— order the Commission to pay the costs .                               it concerns the 'Voilevi ' and 'Voimariini ' trade marks;
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support                  — alternatively, if the Court finds that the Decision does
                                                                        not infringe Regulation ( EC ) No 2991 /94 , declare,
The applicant, a company which markets Peugeot vehicles                 upholding the applicant's plea of illegality , that
in Europe, challenges the decision taken by the Commission,             Regulation ( EC ) No 2991 /94 is inapplicable to the
as part of the investigation of four complaints questioning             applicant to the extent that it would prohibit the further
the conformity with Community competition rules of the                  use of its trademarks 'Voimariini ' and 'Voilevi ' for the
standard exclusive distribution agreement for those                     spreadable fats concerned,
vehicles , to communicate to the companies which had
submitted the complaints certain information obtained               — order the Commission to pay the costs .
from the applicant.
That decision was taken in spite of the applicant's                 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
indications that most of the information was subject to
protection as business secrets, in that it set out the              Valio is a Finnish company in the food sector which
conditions of membership of the Peugeot network and                 manufactures and markets products which are fat mixtures
described the functioning of that network .                         used as spreads, all of which are traded on the Finnish
                                                                    market under the 'Voimariini ' and 'Voilevi ' trade marks
The applicant claims that the case-law as stated in the             registered by Valio in 1980 and 1979 , and which have been
judgment in Case 53/85 AKZO Chemie v. Commission                    used by Valio since then . 'Voi ' in Finnish means butter . The
1986 [ECR ] 1965 has not been observed . It submits that            trade marks 'Voimariini ' and 'Voilevi ' do not have any
while the Commission is the sole judge of the confidentiality       specific meaning.
of the documents supplied to it in an investigation, the
corollary of such a discretion is a strict obligation to state      Under Regulation ( EC ) No 2991 /94 , which sets standards
reasons . According to the applicant, the contested decision        for spreadable fats, 'Voimariini ' is to be labelled under the
is not supported by an adequate statement of reasons . The          sales description ' blend ' while 'Voilevi ' is to be labelled
only explanation given by the Commission does no more               under the sales description ' half-fat blend '.
than assert the need to communicate the information in
question in order to be able to assess what action to take on       By letter dated 21 June 1996 addressed to the Finnish
the complaints, in full knowledge of the facts , after              Representation to the European Union , the Commission
obtaining the observations of those concerned .                     stated that the exclusive use of the sales description ' butter',


title: Case C-233/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by Københavns Byret by order of 17 June 1999 in the case of Anklagemyndigheden v Tonny Haugsted Hansen

text:
C 246/14               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           28.8.1999
Contentions and principal arguments adduced in support                         State examination, without giving further details, gives the
                                                                               impression that all the areas of specialised medicine
                                                                               concerned must be the subject of comprehensive fresh
The pleas in law and main arguments correspond to those in                     training, whereas Article 8(3) provides at most for
Case C-227/99 (3); the period for transposition of the directives              additional training in certain areas. In addition, the Spanish
expired on 30 April 1997.                                                      authorities have not demonstrated the utility of such an
                                                                               examination if the training is to be merely supplementary
                                                                               and limited.
(1) OJ L 144 of 18.6.1996, p. 12.
(2) OJ L 144 of 18.6.1996, p. 35.                                         — Failure to give effect to Article 18 of Directive 93/16/EEC:
(3) Not yet published in the Official Journal.                                 Spain has not shown that the application of its existing
                                                                               domestic law can have an effect equivalent to the
                                                                               implementation of that article.
                                                                          (1) OJ L 165 of 7.7.1993, p. 1.
                                                                          (2) Council Directive 75/362/EEC of 16 June 1975 concerning the
                                                                              mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of
                                                                              formal qualifications in medicine, including measures to facilitate
Action brought on 17 June 1999 by the Commission of                           the effective exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to
the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain                         provide services (OJ L 167 of 30.6.75, p. 1).
                          (Case C-232/99)
                         (1999/C 246/29)
                                                                          Reference for a preliminary ruling by Københavns Byret
                                                                          by order of 17 June 1999 in the case of Anklagemyn-
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before                               digheden v Tonny Haugsted Hansen
Court of Justice on 17 June 1999 by the Commission of the
European Communities, represented by Isabel Martı́nez del
Peral and Bernard Monguin, of its Legal Service, acting as                                           (Case C-233/99)
Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office
of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                                (1999/C 246/30)
The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                          European Communities by order of 17 June 1999 by
1. Declare that, by failing to give due effect within the                 Københavns Byret (Copenhagen District Court), which was
    prescribed period to Article 8 of Council Directive                   received at the Court Registry on 21 June 1999, for a
    93/16/EEC of 5 April 1993 (1) to facilitate the free move-            preliminary ruling in the case of Anklagemyndigheden (Public
    ment of doctors and the mutual recognition of their                   Prosecution Department) v Tonny Haugsted Hansen on the
    diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifi-          following questions:
    cations and by failing to give effect to Article 18 of that
    directive, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its
                                                                          1. Must European Parliament and Council Directive
    obligations under the EC Treaty and under that directive;
                                                                               94/62/EC(1) of 20 December 1994 on packaging and
                                                                               packaging waste, in particular Article 18, in conjunction
2. Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.                                with Articles 5, 7 and 9 thereof, be interpreted as
                                                                               precluding a national system under which criminal charges
                                                                               may be brought against a person who, contrary to certain
                                                                               national rules on the packaging of beer and soft drinks,
Contentions and principal arguments adduced in support
                                                                               has marketed imported canned cola in the metal packaging
                                                                               at issue in this case?
— Failure to give due effect to Article 8 of Directive
    93/16/EEC: a Member State may not make access to the
    training leading to the award of a specialist diploma in              2. If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: Do the
    cases not covered by automatic recognition under the                       provisions of the directive, in particular Article 18, in
    directive systematically conditional upon the passing of a                 conjunction with Articles 5, 7 and 9 thereof, satisfy the
    State examination, like the public examination laid down                   conditions for being directly applicable, so that a person
    for access to the training to become a ‘Resident Medical                   who has been charged can rely directly on the provisions
    Intern’. Articles 39 (ex Article 48) and 43 (ex Article 52)                of the directive before national courts?
    of the EC Treaty, for the implementation of which
    Directives 75/362/EEC (2) and 93/16/EEC were adopted,                 3. If Question 1 is answered in the negative: Does Article 28
    require the Member States to take account, in the broadest                 of the EC Treaty (ex Article 30), in conjunction with
    and most practical way, of training already undertaken in                  considerations of environmental protection (see judgment
    another Member State. However, to subject migrants to a                    of 20 September 1988 in Case 302/86 Commission v
 ---pagebreak--- 28.8.1999               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 246/15
     Denmark [1988] ECR 4607), preclude a national system                   — part of the revenue generated by the levy is allocated to
     under which criminal charges may be brought against a                       activities which, in view of their nature and immediate
     person who, contrary to certain national rules on the                       objectives, concern primary production of pigs in the
     packaging of beer and soft drinks, has marketed imported                    Member State, and thus also benefit exported pigs,
     canned cola in the metal packaging at issue in this case?                   whereas another part of the revenue generated by the
                                                                                levy is allocated to activities which, in view of their
                                                                                nature and immediate objectives, concern only slaugh-
(1) OJ 1994 L 365, p. 10.                                                        tering and further processing in the Member State and
                                                                                the sale on the domestic and export markets of
                                                                                nationally processed derivatives of the primary
                                                                                product, and thus do not benefit exported pigs?
                                                                        II. If Question I is answered in the affirmative: does it make
                                                                            any difference to the answer that the levy scheme was,
                                                                            pursuant to Article 95(3) (Presumably Article 93(3)) of the
                                                                            EC Treaty, notified to and approved by the EU Commission
                                                                            as being lawful State aid?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Vestre Landsret
by order of 16 June 1999 in the case of Niels Nygård v
                        Svineafgiftsfonden
                         (Case C-234/99)
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
                         (1999/C 246/31)                                Justice (England and Wales), Queen’s Bench Division,
                                                                        Divisional Court, by order of that Court of 18 December
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  1998, in the case of The Queen against Secretary of State
European Communities by order of 16 June 1999 by the                    for the Home Department, Ex parte: Eleanora Ivanova
Vestre Landsret (Western Regional Court), which was received                                         Kondova
at the Court Registry on 21 June 1999, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of Niels Nygard v Svineafgiftsfonden on the                                          (Case C-235/99)
following questions:
                                                                                (1999/C 246/32)
I.   Must Articles 9, 12 and 16 of the EC Treaty or Article 95
     of the EC Treaty be construed as meaning that those
     provisions, or that provision, preclude a public body in a         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     Member State from charging a production levy in respect            European Communities by an order of the High Court of
     of pigs produced in the Member State in question and               Justice (England and Wales), Queen’s Bench Division, Div-
     exported live to another Member State, in the case where:          isional Court, of 18 December 1998, which was received at
                                                                        the Court Registry on 22 June 1999, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                        in the case of The Queen against Secretary of State for the
     — a similar levy is charged for each pig produced in the           Home Department, Ex parte: Eleanora Ivanova Kondova, on
         Member State in question and sold for slaughter on the         the following questions:
         domestic market;
                                                                        1. Does Article 45 of the Association Agreement between the
     — the detailed rules for calculating the levy do not give              EEC and the Republic of Bulgaria (‘the Agreement’: OJ
         rise to discrimination between the two product groups,             1993 L 358, p.1) (1) confer rights of establishment upon a
         since, when the different ‘weight categories’ are being            Bulgarian national who, under national immigration law,
         determined for slaughtered and live pigs, it can be                is treated as having entered the territory of that Member
         assumed that compensation is provided for the average              State illegally?
         difference between ‘carcass weight’ and ‘live weight’,
         but                                                            2. If the answer to the first question is ‘yes’, does Article 45
                                                                            of the Agreement have direct effect within the national
     — the levy in respect of pigs sold for slaughter on the                legal systems of Member States, notwithstanding the
         domestic market becomes payable when they are                      provisions of Article 59 of the Agreement?
         delivered for slaughter, whereas the levy in respect of
         pigs exported live becomes payable at the time of              3. If the answer to the second question is ‘yes’,
         export;
                                                                            i) to what extent may a Member State apply its laws and
                                                                                regulations regarding entry and stay, work, labour
     — in the first case, the levy is payable by the producer,                   conditions and establishment of natural persons, and
         whereas in the second case it is payable by the exporter,               supply of services, to persons invoking Article 45 of the
         irrespective of whether he is also the producer, and;                   Agreement, without violating the proviso contained in
                                                                                the penultimate sentence of Article 59(1) of the
     — the levy is not charged in respect of pigs sold live on                   Agreement and, inter alia, the principle of pro-
         the domestic market, and;                                               portionality?


title: Case T-295/05: Action brought on 1 August 2005 by Document Security Systems, Inc. against the European Central Bank

text:
               17.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 229/39

         Action brought on 1 August 2005 by Document Security Systems, Inc. against the European Central Bank
   (Case T-295/05)
   (2005/C 229/81)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the European Central Bank was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 1 August 2005 by Document Security Systems, Inc., established in Rochester, New York (USA), represented by C. Stanbrook, barrister, H. Sheroton and L. Cohen, solicitors, and B. Uphoff, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that the ECB has infringed the patent;

               —

               award damages and interest to be paid by the defendant to the applicant, such amounts to be assessed by separate inquiry in respect of the infringing acts;

               —

               award damages in lieu of an injunction in respect of banknotes printed for and on behalf of the defendant after the date of the judgement until expiry of the patent (such amounts to be assessed by separate inquiry);

               —

               award costs;

               —

               order such further or other relief as the Court shall determine.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant claims that his European Patent 0 455 750 B1, entitled ‘Method of making a nonreplicable document’, has been infringed by the defendant and seeks, in accordance with Article 288 EC, an award of damages by way of payment of a reasonable royalty for the use of the invention of the patent.
   The invention of the patent consists of a method of designing and printing an original document that combats counterfeiting by digital scanning devices. The method involves determining the scanning pitch of a copying device to be protected against and creating an appropriate grid that would give rise to interference patterns, such as moiré patterns, when copied on that scanning device. The grid is overlayed on an original image to produce a printed genuine document in which the grid is usually not discernible to the naked eye.
   According to the applicant, the invention of the patent was used in the designing and the printing of the Euro banknotes, under the authorization of the European Central Bank. The applicant claims furthermore that the issue, keeping and circulation of the Euro banknotes constitutes an infringement of his patent


21.12.2002             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 323/29
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              Removal from the register of Case C-366/01 ( 1)
Article 249 EC, under which a directive shall be binding, as to                              (2002/C 323/44)
the result to be achieved, upon each Member State, carries by
implication an obligation on the Member States to observe the
period for compliance laid down in the directive. That period        By order of 31 July 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
expired on 31 July 2001 without the United Kingdom having            of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
enacted the provisions necessary to comply with the directive        register of Case C-366/01: Commission of the European
referred to in the conclusions of the Commission.                    Communities v Ireland.
( 1) OJ L 201, 31.07.1999, p. 77.
                                                                     (1 ) OJ C 331 of 24.11.2001.
        Removal from the register of Case C-404/95 ( 1)
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-370/01 ( 1)
                         (2002/C 323/43)
                                                                                (2002/C 323/45)
By order of 18 October 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                     By order of 30 September 2002 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-404/95: Federal Republic of
Germany v Commission of the European Communities.                    Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                     from the register of Case C-370/01: Commission of the
                                                                     European Communities v Italian Republic.
( 1) OJ C 95 of 30.03.1996.
                                                                     (1 ) OJ C 331 of 24.11.2001.


title: Case C-177/06: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 September 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (State Aid — Aid scheme — Incompatibility with the common market — Commission decision — Implementation — Abolition of the aid scheme — Cancellation of outstanding aid — Recovery of aid made available — Failure to fulfil obligations — Defences — Illegality of the decision — Absolute impossibility of giving effect to a decision)

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/13

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 September 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-177/06) (1)

   (State Aid - Aid scheme - Incompatibility with the common market - Commission decision - Implementation - Abolition of the aid scheme - Cancellation of outstanding aid - Recovery of aid made available - Failure to fulfil obligations - Defences - Illegality of the decision - Absolute impossibility of giving effect to a decision)
   (2007/C 269/25)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and C. Urraca Caviedes, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: N. Díaz Abad, Agent)
   Re:
   Member State's failure to fulfil its obligations — Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, the measures necessary to ensure implementation of Articles 2 and 3 of the Commission's Decisions of 20 December 2001 on a State aid scheme implemented by Spain in 1993 for certain newly established firms in Guipúzcoa (Spain) (C(2001) 4448) (OJ L 77 of 24 March 2003, p. 1), in Álava (Spain) (C(2001) 4475) (OJ L 17 of 22 January 2003, p. 20) and in Vizcaya (Spain) (C(2001) 4478) (OJ L 40 of 14 February 2003, p. 11).
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court rules:

               1.

               In failing to take the necessary measures within the prescribed period, to comply with Articles 2 and 3 of each of:

                           —

                           Commission Decision 2003/28/EC of 20 December 2001 on a State aid scheme implemented by Spain in 1993 for certain newly established firms in Álava (Spain);

                           —

                           Commission Decision 2003/86/EC of 20 December 2001 on a State aid scheme implemented by Spain in 1993 for certain newly established firms in Vizcaya (Spain);

                           —

                           Commission Decision 2003/192/EC of 2 December 2001 on a State aid scheme implemented by Spain in 1993 for certain newly established firms in Guipúzcoa (Spain),

                     the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions;

               2.

               The Kingdom of Spain is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 143, 17.6.2006.


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 5 December 2001 in Case T-216/01 R: Reisebank AG v Commission of the European Communities (Procedure for interim relief — Decision refusing access to certain documents — Admissibility of the action in the main proceedings)

text:
C 84/58                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         6.4.2002
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              lawyers, v Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
                                                                        S. Rating) — application for interim measures consisting of,
                       8 November 2001                                  first, suspension of operation of the Commission’s decision of
                                                                        14 August 2001 refusing to allow the applicant access
in Case T-65/96: Kish Glass & Co. Ltd v Commission of                   to certain documents concerning the abandonment of the
                the European Communities (1)                            procedure brought against other banks in case COMP/
                                                                        E-1/37.919 — Bank charges for exchanging euro zone
                                                                        currencies and, second, suspension of the procedure under
(Taxation of costs — Indispensable expenses incurred for
                                                                        Article 81 EC in the same case as regards the applicant — the
      the purposes of the proceedings — Lawyer’s fees)
                                                                        President of the Court of First Instance made an order on
                                                                        5 December 2001, the operative part of which is as follows:
                        (2002/C 84/107)
                  (Language of the case: English)                       1.     The application for interim measures is dismissed.
                                                                        2.     The costs are reserved.
In Case T-65/96 DEP, Kish Glass & Co. Ltd, established in
Dublin (Ireland), represented by M. Byrne, Solicitor, with an
address for service in Luxembourg, v Commission of the
European Communities (agents: R. Lyal, R. Caudwell and
B. Doherty), supported by Pilkington United Kingdom Ltd,
established in Saint Helens, Merseyside (United Kingdom),
represented by J. Kallaugher, Solicitor, A. Weitbrecht, and
M. Hansen, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg:          ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
Application for taxation of the costs to be reimbursed by                                              INSTANCE
the applicant to the intervener, Pilkington United Kingdom,
pursuant to the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case
                                                                                of 5 December 2001
T-65/96 Kish Glass v Commission [2000] ECR II-1885, the
Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of:
M. Vilaras, President, V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges, Registrar:     in Case T-219/01 R: Commerzbank AG v Commission of
J. Palacio González, Administrator, has made an order on                                  the European Communities
8 November 2001, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                        (Procedure for interim relief — Decision refusing access to
The total amount of costs to be reimbursed by Kish Glass & Co. Ltd
                                                                        certain documents — Admissibility of the action in the main
to the intervener, Pilkington United Kingdom Ltd is fixed at
                                                                                proceedings)
BEF 1 200 000.
(1) OJ C 210 of 20.7.1996.
                                                                                (2002/C 84/109)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                            In Case T-219/01 R: Commerzbank AG, established in Frank-
                           INSTANCE                                     furt am Main (Germany), represented by H. Satzky and
                                                                        B.M. Maassen, lawyers, v Commission of the European Com-
                     of 5 December 2001                                 munities (Agent: S. Rating) — application for interim measures
                                                                        consisting of, first, suspension of operation of the Com-
in Case T-216/01 R: Reisebank AG v Commission of the                    mission’s decision of 17 August 2001 refusing to allow
                    European Communities                                the applicant access to certain documents concerning the
                                                                        abandonment of the procedure brought against other banks in
                                                                        case COMP/E-1/37.919 — Bank charges for exchanging euro
(Procedure for interim relief — Decision refusing access to             zone currencies and, second, suspension of the procedure
certain documents — Admissibility of the action in the main             under Article 81 EC in the same case as regards the applicant
                           proceedings)                                 — the President of the Court of First Instance made an order
                                                                        on 5 December 2001, the operative part of which is as follows:
                        (2002/C 84/108)
                  (Language of the case: German)                        1.     The application for interim measures is dismissed.
                                                                        2.     The costs are reserved.
In Case T-216/01 R: Reisebank AG, established in Frankfurt am
Main (Germany), represented by M. Klusmann and F. Wiemer,


title: Case C-215/07: Order of the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of 25 June 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany)) — Verlag Schawe GmbH v Sächsisches Druck- und Verlagshaus AG

text:
               8.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 285/32

         Order of the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of 25 June 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany)) — Verlag Schawe GmbH v Sächsisches Druck- und Verlagshaus AG
   (Case C-215/07) (1)

   (2008/C 285/53)

      Language of the case: German

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

      (1)  OJ C 155, 7.7.2007.


title: Case T-63/09: Judgment of the General Court of 21 March 2012 — Volkswagen v OHIM — Suzuki Motor (SWIFT GTi) (Community Trade Mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark SWIFT GTi — Earlier international and national marks GTI — Relative grounds for refusal — Similarity of the goods — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Rejection of the opposition)

text:
               5.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 133/22

         Judgment of the General Court of 21 March 2012 — Volkswagen v OHIM — Suzuki Motor (SWIFT GTi)
   (Case T-63/09) (1)

   (Community Trade Mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark SWIFT GTi - Earlier international and national marks GTI - Relative grounds for refusal - Similarity of the goods - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Assessment of the likelihood of confusion - Rejection of the opposition)
   2012/C 133/42
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Volkswagen AG (Wolfsburg, Germany) (represented by: H.-P. Schrammek, C. Drzymalla and S. Risthaus, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Suzuki Motor Corp. (Shizuoka-ken, Japan)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 December 2008 (Case R 749/2007-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Volkswagen AG and Suzuki Motor Corp.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Volkswagen AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 102, 1.5.2009.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 April 2001 in Case T-82/00 BIC SA and Others v Council of the European Union (Anti-dumping — Pocket lighters originating in Japan — Regulation repealing anti-dumping duties — Obligation to state reasons — Action for annulment)

text:
28.7.2001                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 212/23
1.    Annuls the decision of the selection board in competition             1.    Annuls the decision of the Parliament not to promote the
      COM/A/10/98 in so far as it excludes Ms Caprile and                         applicant to Grade A 4 during the 1998 promotion procedure;
      Mr Radelet from the subsequent tests in competition
      COM/A/10/98. Dismisses the claims of Ms Caprile and                   2.    Dismisses the application for compensation;
      Mr Radelet that all of the acts subsequent to that decision
      in connection with competition COM/A/10/98 should be                  3.    Orders the Parliament to pay the costs.
      annulled;
2.    Dismisses the actions brought by Ms Giulietti, Mr Dell’Olio           (1) OJ C 299 of 16.10.99.
      and Mr Fuhrmann;
3.    In Case T-174/99, orders the Commission to pay half of the
      applicants’ costs and to bear the entirety of its own costs;
4.    In Case T-167/99, orders each party to bear its own costs,
      including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
(1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.99.                                                                             of 5 April 2001
                                                                            in Case T-82/00 BIC SA and Others v Council of the
                                                                                European Union (1)
                                                                            (Anti-dumping — Pocket lighters originating in Japan —
                                                                            Regulation repealing anti-dumping duties — Obligation to
                                                                                state reasons — Action for annulment)
                                                                                (2001/C 212/43)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                           of 8 May 2001                                                        (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                            In Case T-82/00 BIC SA, established in Clichy (France),
in Case T-182/99 Georges Caravelis v European Parlia-                       Flamagas SA, established in Barcelona (Spain), Swedish Match
                               ment (1)                                     SA, established in Nyon (Switzerland), represented by
                                                                            A. Vianello, avocat, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
                                                                            against Council of the European Union (Agents: S. Marquardt,
(Officials — Refusal of promotion — Consideration of                        F.P. Ruggeri Laderchi and G.M. Berrisch) — application for
comparative merits — Action for annulment and compen-                       annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 174/2000 of
                                sation)                                     24 January 2000 repealing Council Regulation (EEC)
                                                                            No 3433/91 in so far as it imposes a definitive anti-dumping
                                                                            duty on imports of gas-fuelled, non-refillable pocket flint
                          (2001/C 212/42)
                                                                            lighters originating in Japan (OJ 2000 L 22, p. 16) — the Court
                                                                            of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition),
                                                                            composed of A.W.H. Meij, President, K. Lenaerts, A. Potocki,
                     (Language of the case: Greek)                          M. Jaeger and J. Pirrung, Judges; J. Palacio González, Adminis-
                                                                            trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 5 April 2001,
                                                                            in which it:
In Case T-182/99 Georges Caravelis, an official of the European
Parliament, residing in Brussels (Belgium), represented by                  1.    Dismisses the application;
C. Tagaras, avocat, against European Parliament (Agents:
Y. Pantalis and N. Korogiannakis) — application for annulment               2.    Orders the applicants to pay the costs.
of the Parliament’s decision not to promote the applicant to
Grade A 4 during the 1998 promotion procedure and also for
compensation for the non-material damage suffered by the                    (1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.00.
applicant — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber),
composed of P. Lindh, President, R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas and
J.D. Cooke, Judges; G. Herzig, Administrator, for the Registrar,
has given a judgment on 8 May 2001, in which it:


title: Case C-340/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 21 June 2013 — bpost SA v Institut belge des services postaux et des télécommunications (IBPT)

text:
               10.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 233/5

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 21 June 2013 — bpost SA v Institut belge des services postaux et des télécommunications (IBPT)
   (Case C-340/13)
   2013/C 233/08
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour d’appel de Bruxelles

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: bpost SA

      Defendant: Institut belge des services postaux et des télécommunications (IBPT)

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the fifth indent of Article 12 of Directive 1997/67/EC, (1) as amended by Directives 2002/39/EC (2) and 2008/6/EC (3), to be interpreted as imposing an obligation of non-discrimination, particularly in relations between the universal service provider and intermediaries, with regard to the operational discounts granted by that provider, the pure quantity discounts remaining subject to the application of the fourth indent of Article 12?

               2.

               If the reply to the first question is in the affirmative, does the pure quantity discount accord with the obligation of non-discrimination laid down under the fourth indent of Article 12 where the differentiation in price which it creates is based on an objective factor having regard to the relevant geographical and services market and it does not create an effect of exclusion or of inducing loyalty?

               3.

               If the reply to the first question is in the negative, does the quantity discount granted to the intermediary breach the principle of non-discrimination under the fifth indent of Article 12 where the its size does not equal the discount granted to a sender who posts an equivalent number of items, but equals all the discounts granted to all the senders on the basis of the number of items of each sender whose postal items are consolidated?

      (1)  Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service (OJ 1998 L 15, p. 14).

      (2)  Directive 2002/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 June 2002 amending Directive 97/67/EC with regard to the further opening to competition of Community postal services (OJ 2002 L 176, p. 21).

      (3)  Directive 2008/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008 amending Directive 97/67/EC with regard to the full accomplishment of the internal market of Community postal services (OJ 2008 L 52, p. 3)


title: Case T-318/14: Action brought on 2 May 2014  — Vinnolit v Commission

text:
               14.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/61

         Action brought on 2 May 2014 — Vinnolit v Commission
   (Case T-318/14)
   2014/C 223/63
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Vinnolit GmbH & Co. KG (Ismaning, Germany) (represented by: M. Geipel, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the European Commission of 18 December 2013 in cases SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN), in so far as it concerns the reduced EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users;

               —

               order the defendant to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law: No aid within the meaning of Article 107 TFEU

                           —

                           The applicant claims that the reduction of the EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users, provided for in the Gesetz für den Vorrang erneuerbarer Energien (Law for the priority of renewable energy sources, hereinafter referred to as EEG), constitutes a modification of a civil law compensation mechanism. No advantage through State resources or State-controlled resources is granted.

               2.

               Second plea in law: In any event, no new aid

                           —

                           The applicant also claims that the reduced EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users does not constitute new aid for the purposes of Article 108 TFEU because the financing mechanism for the support of renewable energies in the Federal Republic of Germany has, in the past, been classified by the European Commission as compatible with the law on State aid and has not been substantially modified thus far.

               3.

               Third plea in law: Infringement of fundamental rights and the principle of proportionality

                           —

                           The applicant submits in that regard that the European Commission did not exercise, or incorrectly exercised, the discretion available to it because it (i) did not take into account the considerable adverse effects for the users concerned, which are associated with the initiation of the formal investigation procedure, and (ii) initiated the investigation procedure at a time when it was not yet necessary.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law: Infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations

                           —

                           The applicant claims that, by its decision, the European Commission infringed the legitimate expectations of the users concerned because the financing mechanism for the support of renewable energies in the Federal Republic of Germany has, in the past, been classified by the European Commission as compatible with the law on State aid and has not been substantially modified since.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law: Misuse of powers

                           —

                           Lastly, the applicant claims that, by its decision, the European Commission misused the powers conferred on it by unduly reducing the margin of discretion conferred upon the Federal Republic of Germany under primary and secondary law as regards the manner in which support for renewable energies is organised.


title: Case T-2/08: Action brought on 2 January 2008 — Landesanstalt für Medien Nordrhein-Westfalen v Commission

text:
               8.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 64/54

         Action brought on 2 January 2008 — Landesanstalt für Medien Nordrhein-Westfalen v Commission
   (Case T-2/08)
   (2008/C 64/86)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Landesanstalt für Medien Nordrhein-Westfalen (LfM) (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: A. Rosenfeld and G.-B. Lehr, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 5109 final of 23 October 2007 on the State Aid which the Federal Republic of Germany wishes to grant for the introduction of digital terrestrial television (DVB-T) in Nordrhein-Westfalen;

               —

               the Commission to be ordered to pay the costs

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant is challenging Commission Decision C (2007) 5109 final of 23 October 2007 on State aid C 34/2006 (ex N 29/2005 and ex CP 13/2004), in which the Commission decided that the State aid which the Federal Republic of Germany wishes to grant to commercial service broadcasters in the context of the introduction of digital terrestrial television in Nordrhein-Westfalen, and which was notified to the Commission, is not compatible with the common market.
   In support of its action the applicant submits, first, that the contested decision infringes Article 87(1) EC as the measure was wrongly found to amount to State aid. In this connection it is also submitted that there was infringement of Article 253 EC.
   In addition it is submitted that an unlawful method of assessment was used in the context of the assessment under Article 87(3)(c) EC. In that regard, the applicant also maintains that there were errors of judgment and assessment and that there was infringement of Article 253 EC.
   As a result of errors of judgment and assessment it is further submitted that there was infringement of Article 87(3)(b) and (d) EC.
   Lastly, the applicant claims that the measure concerned is in any event covered by the exception in Article 86(2) EC. It is also submitted here that there was infringement of Article 253 EC.


title: Case T-908/16: Order of the General Court of 7 February 2017 — Starbucks (HK) v EUIPO — Now Wireless (nowwireless)

text:
               10.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/51

         Order of the General Court of 7 February 2017 — Starbucks (HK) v EUIPO — Now Wireless (nowwireless)
   (Case T-908/16) (1)

   (2017/C 112/72)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 46, 13.2.2017.


title: Case T-140/16 R II: Order of the President of the General Court of 16 February 2017 — Le Pen v Parliament (Interim measures — Member of the European Parliament — Recovery by offsetting of allowances paid by way of reimbursement of parliamentary assistance expenses — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Fresh application — New facts — No urgency)

text:
               18.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 121/30

         Order of the President of the General Court of 16 February 2017 — Le Pen v Parliament
   (Case T-140/16 R II)
   ((Interim measures - Member of the European Parliament - Recovery by offsetting of allowances paid by way of reimbursement of parliamentary assistance expenses - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Fresh application - New facts - No urgency))
   (2017/C 121/43)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Jean-Marie Le Pen (Saint-Cloud, France) (represented by: M. Ceccaldi and J.-P. Le Moigne, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: G. Corstens and S. Alonso de León, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application based on Articles 278 and 279 TFEU, seeking the suspension of operation of the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 29 January 2016 ordering the recovery from the applicant of a sum of EUR 320 026,23, and of debit note No 2016-195 of 4 February 2016 adopted pursuant to that decision.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case T-339/08: Action brought on 18 August 2008 — BVGD v Commission

text:
               25.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 272/40

         Action brought on 18 August 2008 — BVGD v Commission
   (Case T-339/08)
   (2008/C 272/80)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Belgische Vereniging van handelaars in- en uitvoerders geslepen diamant (BVGD) (Antwerp, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi and C. Ronzi, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               To declare the present action admissible;

               —

               To annul the Commission decision dated 5 June 2008 by which the Commission rejected the complaint lodged by the applicant, in relation to the issue of input foreclosure, for the reason that there are insufficient grounds for acting on it (Case COMP/39.221/E-2-De Beers/DTC Supplier of Choice)

               —

               To order the Commission to provide:

                           —

                           a proper and meaningful version of the replies provided by De Beers and Alrosa to the Commission in the framework of the so-called ‘supplementary procedure’;

                           —

                           all non-confidential versions of the complaints and related documents submitted to the Commission concerning the SOC and the Trade Administrative Agreement between De Beers and Alrosa;

                           —

                           all non-confidential versions of the investigation documents concerning the SOC and the Trade Administrative Agreement between De Beers and Alrosa;

                           —

                           the request filed by Alrosa in Case T-170/06;

                           —

                           the statements of objections to which it refers in the ‘supplementary rejection decision’;

                           —

                           the annual reports on De Beers' commitments drafted by the Trustee;

               —

               To order the Commission to pay all the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Following the annulment by the Court of First Instance, on 11 July 2007, of the Commission decision of 22 February 2006 (Case T -170/06 Alrosa v Commission), the Commission decided to open a supplementary procedure based on Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004, in order to assess the possible impact of the annulment to the commitment decision on the overall conclusion on input foreclosure as set out in the decision of 26 January 2007 (2007)D/200338 (Case COMP/39.221/E-2-De Beers/DTC Supplier of Choice) rejecting the applicant's complaint filed with the Commission on 14 July 2005 alleging violations of Articles 81 and 82 EC, in connection with the Supplier of Choice system for distribution of rough diamonds applied by the De Beers group (‘the rejection decision’). The legality of this decision was challenged by the applicant by action lodged at the Court on 6 April 2007, which is currently subject to proceedings in Case T-104/07 (1).
   By means of the present action the applicant seeks annulment of Commission's supplementary decision of 5 June 2008 (2008)D/203543 made pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 (2) by which the Commission concluded that there were no grounds to reconsider the rejection decision in so far as, in relation to input foreclosure, there was an insufficient degree of Community interest for conducting a further investigation into the alleged infringements.
   The applicant raises three main pleas in law in support of its claims:
   First, the applicant claims that Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 is not the correct legal basis for the supplementary procedure and the impugned decision. In fact, it submits that the said provision does not empower the Commission to re-examine a situation but only deals with the rejection of complaints and allows the Commission thereby to inform the complainant about insufficient grounds to act on a complaint, setting a time-limit within which the complainant may express its views in writing. Moreover, the applicant submits that the Commission misapplied the general legal principles on the retroactive revocation of administrative acts.
   Second, the applicant contends that its procedural rights deriving from Articles 7 and 8 of Regulation (EC) No 773/2994 were breached since the applicant was prevented from exercising its right of access to documents on which the Commission based its provisional assessment. On this point the applicant argues that the Commission did not show that the limited access to the file could be justified by the necessity to guarantee the protection of confidentiality understood under commercial secrets.
   Third, the applicant claims that the contested decision infringes Articles 2 and 3 EC and the notion of Community interest, as well as the duty to state reasons.

      (1)  OJ 2007 C 129, p. 18.

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2004 L 123, p. 18).


title: Case T-539/11: Action brought on 13 October 2011 — Deutsche Bank v OHIM (Leistung aus Leidenschaft)

text:
               14.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/16

         Action brought on 13 October 2011 — Deutsche Bank v OHIM (Leistung aus Leidenschaft)
   (Case T-539/11)
   2012/C 13/34
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

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

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 August 2011 in Case R 188/2011-4;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘Leistung aus Leidenschaft’ for services in Classes 35, 36 and 38

      Decision of the Examiner: rejection of the application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 as the Community trade mark concerned has distinctive character


title: Case C-320/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Haarlem (Netherlands), lodged on 2 July 2010 — X v Inspecteur der Belastingdienst P

text:
               11.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/27

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Haarlem (Netherlands), lodged on 2 July 2010 — X v Inspecteur der Belastingdienst P
   (Case C-320/10)
   ()
   2010/C 246/46
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank Haarlem

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: X BV

      Defendant: Inspecteur der Belastingdienst P

      Questions referred

               1.

               In the assessment of the validity and/or the interpretation of Regulations No 535/94, (1) No 1832/2002, (2) No 1871/2003 (3) and No 2344/2003, (4) by which additional note 7 (CN) to Chapter 2 was introduced (numbered as note 8 at the time) and amended, is it possible to rely on the decision of 27 September 2005 of the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) [of the World Trade Organisation] concerning the interpretation of the term ‘salted’ in heading 0210, even in cases in which the declaration for the customs procedure for ‘release for free circulation’ was made before that date?

               2.

               If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:
               How is it to be determined whether the character of chicken meat has been altered?

               3.

               If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:

                           (a)

                           Having regard to the DSB’s decision of 27 September 2005, are the aforementioned regulations valid in so far as they lay down that, for the purposes of heading 0210, meat is deemed to be ‘salted’ if it has a total salt content by weight of 1,2 % or more?

                           (b)

                           In the light of the DSB’s decision of 27 September 2005, must the aforementioned regulations be interpreted as meaning that additional note 7 (CN) to Chapter 2 lays down that the character of meat with a salt content by weight of 1,2 % or more is deemed to have been altered, that that meat qualifies as ‘salted’ for the purposes of heading 0210, and that meat with a salt content by weight of less than 1,2 %, the character of which has been demonstrably altered through the addition of salt, is not excluded from classification under heading 0210?

               4.

               If Question 3(a) is answered in the affirmative:
               How is it to be determined whether the long-term preservation of chicken meat is guaranteed through the addition of salt?

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 535/94 of 9 March 1994 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1994 L 68, p. 15).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1832/2002 of 1 August 2002 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2002 L 290, p. 1).

      (3)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1871/2003 of 23 October 2003 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 5).

      (4)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2344/2003 of 30 December 2003 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2003 L 346, p. 38).


title: Case C-151/10: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 April 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidshof te Antwerpen (Belgium)) — Dai Cugini NV v Rijkdienst voor Sociale Zekerheid (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Directive 97/811/EC — Equal treatment of part-time and full-time workers — Discrimination — Administrative obstacle likely to limit the opportunities for part-time work — Mandatory publication and retention of contracts and work-schedules)

text:
               16.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/7

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 April 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidshof te Antwerpen (Belgium)) — Dai Cugini NV v Rijkdienst voor Sociale Zekerheid
   (Case C-151/10) (1)

   (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Directive 97/811/EC - Equal treatment of part-time and full-time workers - Discrimination - Administrative obstacle likely to limit the opportunities for part-time work - Mandatory publication and retention of contracts and work-schedules)
   2011/C 211/12
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Arbeidshof te Antwerpen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Dai Cugini NV

      Defendant: Rijkdienst voor Sociale Zekerheid

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Arbeidshof te Antwerpen (Afdeling Hasselt) — Interpretation of Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC (OJ 1998 L 14, p. 9) — National legislation providing for a system for the publication and monitoring of work schedules of part-time workers, consisting of the mandatory compilation and retention, subject to criminal or administrative penalties, of documents recording the exact duration of work performed by each worker

      Operative part of the order

   Clause 4 of the Framework Agreement annexed to Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which makes employers responsible for the obligations of retention and publication of the contracts and work-schedules of part-time workers if it is established that such legislation does not lead to them being treated less favourably than full-time workers in a similar situation or, if such there is such a difference in treatment, it is established that it is justified on objective grounds and does not go beyond what is necessary to attain the objectives thus pursued.
   It is for the referring court to perform the necessary factual and legal investigation, particularly with regard to the applicable national law, in order to determine whether that is so in the case before it.
   In the event that the referring court were to conclude that the national legislation at issue is incompatible with Clause 4 of the Framework Agreement on part-time work annexed to Directive 97/81, Clause 5(1) thereof would have to be interpreted as precluding such legislation

      (1)  OJ C 161, 19.6.2010.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) 25 April 2002 in Case C-154/00: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 85/374/EEC — Product liability — Incorrect transposition)

text:
C 144/6               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           15.6.2002
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                         States relating to trade marks, as amended by the Agreement
                                                                              on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992, must be
                                                                              interpreted as meaning that a trade mark proprietor may rely
                         23 April 2002                                        on its trade mark rights in order to prevent a parallel importer
                                                                              from repackaging pharmaceutical products unless the exercise
                                                                              of those rights contributes to artificial partitioning of the
in Case C-143/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                     markets between Member States.
the High Court of Justice): Boehringer Ingelheim KG,
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma KG v Swingward Ltd, and                     2.    Replacement packaging of pharmaceutical products is objectively
between Boehringer Ingelheim KG, Boehringer Ingelheim                         necessary within the meaning of the Court’s case-law if, without
Pharma KG and Dowelhurst Ltd, and between Glaxo                               such repackaging, effective access to the market concerned, or to
Group Ltd and Swingward Ltd, and between Boehringer                           a substantial part of that market, must be considered to be
Ingelheim KG, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma KG and                              hindered as the result of strong resistance from a significant
Dowelhurst Ltd, and between Glaxo Group Ltd, The                              proportion of consumers to relabelled pharmaceutical products.
Wellcome Foundation Ltd and Dowelhurst Ltd, and
between SmithKline Beecham plc, Beecham Group plc,                      3.    A parallel importer must, in any event, in order to be entitled
SmithKline & French Laboratories Ltd and Dowelhurst                           to repackage trade-marked pharmaceutical products, fulfil the
 Ltd and between Eli Lilly and Co. and Dowelhurst Ltd (1)                     requirement of prior notice. If the parallel importer does not
                                                                              satisfy that requirement, the trade mark proprietor may oppose
                                                                              the marketing of the repackaged pharmaceutical product. It is
(Trade marks — Directive 89/104/EEC — Article 7(2) —                          incumbent on the parallel importer himself to give notice to the
Exhaustion of the rights conferred by the trade mark                          trade mark proprietor of the intended repackaging. In the event
— Pharmaceutical products — Parallel importation —                            of dispute, it is for the national court to assess, in the light of
          Repackaging of the trade-marked product)                            all the relevant circumstances, whether the proprietor had a
                                                                              reasonable time to react to the intended repackaging.
                        (2002/C 144/08)
                                                                        (1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.
                  (Language of the case: English)
In Case C-143/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the High Court of Justice of England and Wales,                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Chancery Division (United Kingdom), for a preliminary ruling
in the proceedings pending before that court between Boeh-
ringer Ingelheim KG, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma KG and                                            (Fifth Chamber)
Swingward Ltd, and between Boehringer Ingelheim KG, Boeh-
ringer Ingelheim Pharma KG and Dowelhurst Ltd, and between
Glaxo Group Ltd and Swingward Ltd, and between Boehringer                                            25 April 2002
Ingelheim KG, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma KG and Dowel-
hurst Ltd, and between Glaxo Group Ltd, The Wellcome                    in Case C-154/00: Commission of the European Communi-
Foundation Ltd and Dowelhurst Ltd, and between SmithKline                                   ties v Hellenic Republic (1)
Beecham plc, Beecham Group plc, SmithKline & French
Laboratories Ltd and Dowelhurst Ltd and between Eli Lilly and
Co. and Dowelhurst Ltd, on the interpretation of Article 7(2)           (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988               Directive 85/374/EEC — Product liability — Incorrect
to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade                                       transposition)
marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1), as amended by the Agreement on
the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992 (OJ 1994 L 1,
                                                                                (2002/C 144/09)
p. 3), and of Articles 28 EC and 30 EC, the Court, composed
of: G. C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, P. Jann (President
of Chamber), C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), D. A. O. Edward,                                       (Language of the case: Greek)
M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen, V. Skouris, J. N. Cunha Rodrigues
and C. W. A. Timmermans, Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate
General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Head of Division, for the                 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Registrar,has given a judgment on 23 April 2002, in which it                                in the European Court Reports)
has ruled:
1.    Article 7(2) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of             In Case C-154/00, Commission of the European Communities
      21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member            (Agent: M. Patakia) v Hellenic Republic (Agents: A. Samoni-
 ---pagebreak--- 15.6.2002                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 144/7
Rantou, G. Alexaki and S. Vodina): Application for a declar-                 ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
ation that, by not providing in the national legislation transpos-           Johann Franz Duchon and Pensionsversicherungsanstalt der
ing Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the                      Angestellten, on the interpretation of Article 48 and Article 51
approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative                    EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39 and Article 42
provisions of the Member States concerning liability for                     EC), and on the interpretation and validity of Article 9a and
defective products (OJ 1985 L 210, p. 29) for the threshold of               Article 94 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of
EUR 500 laid down in Article 9(b) of that directive, the                     14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to
Hellenic Republic has transposed that provision only partially,              employed workers, to self-employed workers and to members
the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur),                of their families moving within the Community, as amended
President of the Chamber, S. von Bahr, D. A. O. Edward, A. La                and updated by Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of the Council of
Pergola and C. W. A. Timmermans, Judges; L. A. Geelhoed,                     2 December 1996 (OJ 1997 L 28, p. 1), the Court (Fifth
Advocate General; Lynn Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for                 Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber,
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 25 April 2002, in                     S. von Bahr, and M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), Judges; F. G. Jacobs,
which it:                                                                    Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
                                                                             on 18 April 2002, in which it has ruled:
1.    Declares that, by not making provision in the national
      legislation transposing Council Directive 85/374/EEC of
      25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations
      and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning
      liability for defective products for the threshold of EUR 500
      referred to in Article 9(b) of the Directive, the Hellenic Republic
                                                                             1.   The situation of a person who is a national of a Member State,
      has failed to fulfil its obligations under that provision;
                                                                                who, before the accession of that State to the European Union,
                                                                                was employed in another Member State where he was the victim
2.    Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                                of an accident at work, and who, after the accession of his home
                                                                                State, applies to the authorities in that State for a pension for
(1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.                                                        incapacity for work as a result of that accident falls within the
                                                                                scope of application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71
                                                                                of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes
                                                                                to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members
                                                                                of their families moving within the Community, as amended
                                                                                and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of
                                                                                2 December 1996.
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                             2.   Article 94(3) of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and
                              18 April 2002                                       updated by Regulation No 118/97, read in conjunction with
                                                                                Article 48(2) of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
in Case C-290/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling                              Article 39(2) EC), must be interpreted as precluding a national
from the Oberster Gerichtshof): Johann Franz Duchon v                             provision such as Paragraph 235(3)(a) of the Allgemeines
     Pensionsversicherungsanstalt der Angestellten (1)                            Sozialversicherungsgesetz, which provides an exception to the
                                                                                requirement of a qualifying period as a condition for the
                                                                                acquisition of the right to an occupational disability pension
(Social security for migrant workers — Article 48 and                             where that disability is the result of an accident at work —
Article 51 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,                                which occurred, in the case in point, before the date of entry
Article 39 and Article 42 EC) — Article 9a and 94 of                              into force of that regulation in the Member State concerned —
Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Accident at work occurring                          only in the event that the victim had been insured compulsorily
in another Member State before the entry into force of the                        or privately at the time of the accident under the legislation of
regulation in the worker’s home State — Incapacity for                            that State, to the exclusion of the legislation of all other
                                   work)                                          Member States.
                            (2002/C 144/10)
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                             3.   Articles 48(2) and 51 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published            Articles 39(2) and 42 EC) must be interpreted as meaning that
                     in the European Court Reports)                               they preclude a provision such as Paragraph 234(1)(2)(b) of
                                                                                the Allgemeines Sozialversicherungsgesetz, read in conjunction
                                                                                with Paragraph 236(3) of that law, which takes into account,
                                                                                for the purposes of prolongation of the reference period during
In Case C-290/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234                        which the qualifying period for the acquisition of the right to a
EC by the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary                        pension must have been completed, only those periods during