title: Case C-260/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 18 June 2008 — Bundesfinanzdirektion West v HEKO Industrieerzeugnisse GmbH

text:
               27.9.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/3

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 18 June 2008 — Bundesfinanzdirektion West v HEKO Industrieerzeugnisse GmbH
   (Case C-260/08)
   (2008/C 247/04)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesfinanzhof
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Bundesfinanzdirektion West

      Respondent: HEKO Industrieerzeugnisse GmbH
   Question referred
   Is the only substantial processing or working of products coming under heading 7312 of the Combined Nomenclature which confers non-preferential origin in accordance with Article 24 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (1) that which has the effect that the product resulting from that processing or working is to be classified under a different heading of the Combined Nomenclature?

      (1)  OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.


title: Case T-564/12: Action brought on 26 December 2012 — Ministry of Energy of Iran v Council

text:
               23.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/21

         Action brought on 26 December 2012 — Ministry of Energy of Iran v Council
   (Case T-564/12)
   2013/C 55/38
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Ministry of Energy of Iran (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: M. Lester, Barrister)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012 (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 of 15 October 2012 (2), in so far as those measure apply to the applicant;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that none of the legal criteria for listing the applicants is fulfilled, the Council erred manifestly in considering that any of the criteria for listing was fulfilled, and its designation is based on a manifest error of fact.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Council has failed to give adequate or sufficient reasons for including the applicant in the contested measures.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Council has failed to safeguard the applicant’s rights of defence and to effective judicial review.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council’s decision to designate the applicant has infringed, without justification or proportion, the applicant’s fundamental rights, including its right to protection of its property, business, and reputation.

      (1)  Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 282, p. 58)

      (2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 of 15 October 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 282, p. 16)


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 September 1999 in Case C-374/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Anton Feyrer v Landkreis Rottal-Inn (Directive 85/73/EEC - Fees in respect of health inspections and controls of fresh meat - Direct effect)

text:
C 352/4                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          4.12.1999
1. The Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its                L 39, p. 40) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
    obligations under the third indent of the first subparagraph, and      G. Hirsch (Rapporteur), President of the Second Chamber,
    the second subparagraph, of Article 3(2) and under Article 5 of        acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber, J.L. Murray and
    Directive 90/313,                                                      H. Ragnemalm, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; H. Rühl,
                                                                           Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
    — By failing to provide for access to be given to information          on 9 September 1999, in which it has ruled:
         during administrative proceedings where the public auth-
         orities have received information in the course of those          Article 119 of the EC Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty
         proceedings,                                                      have been replaced by Articles 136 EC to 143 EC) must be
                                                                           interpreted as meaning that exclusion by a collective agreement from
    — by failing to provide in the Umweltinformationsgesetz for            entitlement to a special annual bonus provided for by that collective
         information to be supplied in part where it is possible to        agreement of persons in employment which involves a normal
         separate out information concerning the interests referred to     working week of less than 15 hours and normal pay not exceeding a
         in Article 3(2) of Council Directive 90/313/EEC of 7 June         fraction of the monthly baseline and is, on that basis, exempt from
         1990 on the freedom of access to information on the               compulsory social insurance constitutes indirect discrimination based
         environment, and                                                  on sex, where that exclusion applies independently of the sex of the
                                                                           worker but actually affects a considerably higher percentage of women
    — by failing to provide that a charge is to be made only where         than men.
         information is in fact supplied.
2. The remainder of the application is dismissed.                          (1) OJ C 295 of 27.9.1997.
3. The Federal Republic of Germany is ordered to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 252 of 16.8.1997.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Second Chamber)
                                                                                of 9 September 1999
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                           in Case C-374/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                          (Sixth Chamber)                                  the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Anton Feyrer v
                                                                                Landkreis Rottal-Inn (1)
                       of 9 September 1999
                                                                           (Directive 85/73/EEC — Fees in respect of health inspections
in Case C-281/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                            and controls of fresh meat — Direct effect)
the Arbeitsgericht, Munich): Andrea Krüger v Kreiskran-
                       kenhaus Ebersberg (1)                                                         (1999/C 352/08)
(Equal treatment for men and women — End-of-year bonus
                    — Conditions for granting)                                                (Language of the case: German)
                           (1999/C 352/07)                                 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                    (Language of the case: German)                         In Case C-374/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                                                                           the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Bayerischer
                                                                           Verwaltungsgerichtshof, Germany, for a preliminary ruling in
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     the proceedings pending before that court between Anton
                    in the European Court Reports)                         Feyrer and Landkreis Rottal-Inn (Intervener: Landesanwalt-
                                                                           schaft Bayern als Vertreter des öffentlichen Interesses) —
In Case C-281/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of              on the interpretation of Article 2(3) of Council Directive
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Arbeitsgericht                 85/73/EEC of 29 January 1985 on the financing of health
(Labour Court), Munich, Germany, for a preliminary ruling in               inspections and controls of fresh meat and poultrymeat (OJ
the proceedings pending before that court between Andrea                   1985 L 32, p. 14), as amended by Council Directive 93/118/EC
Krüger and Kreiskrankenhaus Ebersberg — on the interpret-                  of 22 December 1993 (OJ 1993 L 340, p. 15), and of points 1
ation of Article 119 of the EC Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 of              and 4(b) of Chapter I of the Annex thereto — the Court
the EC Treaty have been replaced by Articles 136 EC to 143                 (Second Chamber), composed of: G. Hirsch, President of the
EC) and Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on                 Chamber, G.F. Mancini and R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), Judges;
the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for                 P. Léger, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal
men and women as regards access to employment, vocational                  Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
training and promotion, and working conditions (OJ 1976                    9 September 1999, in which it has ruled:
 ---pagebreak--- 4.12.1999                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 352/5
1. Where a Member State has not transposed Council Directive                17 December 1997 in Case T-152/95 Petrides v Commission
     85/73/EEC of 29 January 1985 on the financing of health                [1997] ECR II-2427, seeking to have that judgment set aside,
     inspections and controls of fresh meat and poultrymeat, as             the other party to the proceedings being Commission of the
     amended by Council Directive 93/118/EC of 22 December                  European Communities (Agent: Gérard Berscheid) — the Court
     1993, into national law within the period prescribed, individuals      (Third Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of
     cannot oppose the collection of fees higher than the levers of the     the Chamber, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida (Rapporteur) and
     standard amounts fixed in point 1 of Chapter I of the Annex to         C. Gulmann, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate Gen-
     the Directive, where those fees do not exceed the actual costs.        eral; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 September
                                                                            1999, in which it:
2. A Member State may exercise the option available under
     point 4(b) of Chapter I of the Annex to Directive 85/73, as            1. Dismisses the appeal;
     amended by Directive 93/118, of collecting a special fee
                                                                            2. Orders Odette Nicos Petrides Co. Inc. to pay the costs.
     exceeding the level of the standard fees fixed in point 1 of
     Chapter I, provided only that the special fee does not exceed the
     actual costs incurred, no further conditions being imposed.            (1) OJ C 151 of 16.5.1998.
3. In cases where a Member State has delegated to local authorities
     the collection of fees relating to health inspections and controls
     of fresh meat, Article 2(3) of Directive 85/73, as amended by
     Directive 93/118, authorises it to collect an amount higher than
     Community fee levels so long as it does not exceed the actual                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
     costs of inspection incurred by the competent local authority.
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
( 1) OJ C 387 of 20.12.1997. OJ C 7 of 10.1.1998.
                                                                                of 9 September 1999
                                                                            in Case C-108/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                            the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Campania):
                                                                            RI.SAN Srl v Comune di Ischia, Italia Lavoro SpA,
                                                                                formerly GEPI SpA, Ischia Ambiente SpA (1)
                                                                            (Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services —
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                             Organisation of urban waste collection service)
                           (Third Chamber)                                                            (1999/C 352/10)
                        of 9 September 1999                                                     (Language of the case: Italian)
in Case C-64/98 P: Odette Nicos Petrides Co. Inc. v                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
        Commission of the European Communities (1)                                             in the European Court Reports)
(Appeal — Action for compensation — Common organis-                         In Case C-108/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
ation of the market in raw tobacco — Commission decisions                   the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunale
rejecting bids in tendering procedures in respect of tobacco                Amministrativo Regionale della Campania, Italy, for a prelimi-
held by intervention agencies — Inadequate statement of                     nary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
reasons, principles of proportionality, equal treatment and                 between RI.SAN Srl and Comune di Ischia, Italia Lavoro
                      the right to a fair hearing)                          SpA, formerly GEPI SpA, Ischia Ambiente SpA — on the
                                                                            interpretation of Articles 55 and 90(2) of the EC Treaty (now
                                                                            Articles 45 EC and 86(2) EC) — the Court (Fifth Chamber),
                            (1999/C 352/09)                                 composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber,
                                                                            P. Jann (Rapporteur), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward and L. Se-
                                                                            vón, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; H. von Holstein,
                      (Language of the case: French)                        Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                            9 September 1999, in which it has ruled:
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      Article 55 of the EC Treaty (now Article 45 EC) does not apply in a
                     in the European Court Reports)                         situation such as that in the main proceedings in which all the facts
                                                                            are confined to within a single Member State and which does not
                                                                            therefore have any connecting link with one of the situations envisaged
In Case C-64/98 P: Odette Nicos Petrides Co. Inc., established              by Community law in the area of the freedom of movement for
in Kavala (Greece), represented by Nikolaos Vassilakakis,                   persons and freedom to provide services.
Evangelos Vassilakakis, of the Thessaloniki Bar, and Evangelia
Pallioudi, of the Kavala Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Carlos Zeyen, 67 Rue                          (1) OJ C 209 of 4.7.1998.
Ermesinde — appeal against the judgment of the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities (Fourth Chamber) of


title: Case F-92/11: Action brought on 23 September 2011 — ZZ v EESC

text:
               26.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/46

         Action brought on 23 September 2011 — ZZ v EESC
   (Case F-92/11)
   2011/C 347/86
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

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

      Defendant: European Economic and Social Committee

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision of the EESC refusing the applicant’s request for acknowledgement that he was the victim of misconduct, as a result of lack of assistance and a breach of the duty of care, and for measures to be taken in order to establish publicly the applicant’s merits and abilities, and a claim for damages.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 14 June 2011 of the Secretary-General of the European Economic and Social Committee (Appointing authority/EESC) rejecting the applicant’s complaint seeking acknowledgement that he was the victim of misconduct, as a result of lack of assistance and a breach of the duty of care, and requesting that measures be taken to establish publicly the applicant’s merits and abilities, in particular the applicant’s capacity to run an administrative unit and manage its human and financial resources;

               —

               order the EESC to pay a sum of EUR 15 000 by way of compensation for non-material damage resulting from a breach of the appointing authority’s duty of care;

               —

               order the EESC to pay the costs.


title: Case T-54/06: Action brought on  22 February 2006  — Kendrion v Commission

text:
               22.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/20

         Action brought on 22 February 2006 — Kendrion v Commission
   (Case T-54/06)
   (2006/C 96/36)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: Kendrion N.V. (Zeist, Netherlands) (represented by: P. Glazener and C.C. Meijer, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside in whole or in part the decision addressed to the applicant, inter alios;

               —

               set aside or reduce the fine imposed on the applicant;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant is challenging the Commission Decision of 30 November 2005 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case No COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial bags), in which the applicant was held to be guilty of infringing the rules on competition and ordered to pay a fine.
   In support of its action the applicant alleges breach of Article 81 EC, Article 253 EC and Article 15(2) of Regulation No 1/2003, on the ground that the operative part of the decision is inconsistent with its grounds. The applicant submits that, while it is not accused in the grounds of the contested decision of individual participation in the breach, it is accused in the operative part of breaching Article 81 EC.
   The applicant goes on to submit that there has been a breach of Article 81 EC, Article 253 EC and Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003 by reason of the fact that the Commission wrongly assumed that the applicant and Fardem Packaging B.V. formed a single economic unit, with the result that the applicant was unjustly fined as a result of a breach by Fardem Packaging.
   The applicant submits that the Commission also breached Article 81 EC, Article 253 EC and Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003 and infringed general principles of law, including the duty of care, the prohibition of arbitrary action, and the principles of equality and proportionality.
   The applicant goes on to submit that the Commission held the applicant liable for a breach committed by Fardem Packaging, contrary to other Commission decisions in which the parent company was not held liable. Furthermore, the applicant, in its capacity as parent company, incurred a fine in excess of that for which the subsidiary, which committed the breach, was held jointly and severally liable. The applicant claims further that it was treated in a manner different to the other parent companies held jointly and severally liable for breaches committed by their subsidiaries. The fine imposed on the applicant also amounts, it argues, to an infringement of the principle of proportionality and the duty of care.
   The applicant concludes by alleging a breach of the guidelines for the calculation of fines, in particular as Article 5(b) of those guidelines was not applied. The applicant submits that the Commission failed to take proper account of the specific characteristics of the undertaking.


title: Case C-195/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour Constitutionnelle, Belgium lodged on 26 April 2012 — I.B.V & Cie SA (Industrie du bois de Vielsalm & Cie SA) v Walloon Region

text:
               7.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 200/7

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour Constitutionnelle, Belgium lodged on 26 April 2012 — I.B.V & Cie SA (Industrie du bois de Vielsalm & Cie SA) v Walloon Region
   (Case C-195/12)
   2012/C 200/12
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour Constitutionnelle (formerly Cour d’arbitrage)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Original claimant: I.B.V & Cie SA (Industrie du bois de Vielsalm & Cie SA)

      Original defendant: Walloon Region

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 7 of Directive 2004/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 on the promotion of cogeneration based on a useful heat demand in the internal energy market and amending Directive 92/42/EEC, (1) in conjunction if appropriate with Articles 2 and 4 of Directive 2001/77/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2001 on the promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market (2) and with Article 22 of Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC, (3) be interpreted, in the light of the general principle of equal treatment, of Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union and of Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

                           (a)

                           as applying only to high-efficiency cogeneration plants, within the meaning of Annex III to the directive;

                           (b)

                           as requiring, permitting or prohibiting the availability of a support measure of the kind contained in Article 38(3) of the Walloon Region Decree of 12 April 2001 on the organisation of the regional electricity market to all cogeneration plants principally exploiting biomass and meeting the conditions laid down by that article, with the exception of cogeneration plants principally exploiting wood or wood waste?

               2.

               Would the answer be different if the cogeneration plant principally exploits only wood or, on the contrary, only wood waste?

      (1)  OJ L 52, p. 50.

      (2)  OJ L 283, p. 33.

      (3)  OJ L 140, p. 16.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) 7 February 2002 in Case C-279/00: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Freedom to supply services — Free movement of capital — Business of providing temporary labour)

text:
4.5.2002                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 109/11
2.    Article 69(1)(a) of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and            On a proper construction of Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC)
      updated by Regulation No 118/97, must be construed as                No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical
      meaning that, in order to retain entitlement to unemployment         nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by
      benefits as provided for therein, a person seeking work must         Regulation (EC) No 2086/97 of 4 November 1997, immunoglobul-
      have remained available to the employment services of the            in concentrates from dried, defatted and decaseinated colostrum,
      competent State for a total of at least four weeks after the         standardised by means of lactose, are to be classified as pharmaceutical
      commencement of unemployment, regardless of whether that             products in Chapter 30 of the Combined Nomenclature.
      period was continuous or not.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.
(1) OJ C 211 of 22.7.2000.
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        (Fourth Chamber)
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                           7 March 2002
                                                                                7 February 2002
in Case C-259/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Finanzgericht München): Biochem Zusatzstoffe                      in Case C-279/00: Commission of the European Communi-
Handels- und Produktions GmbH v Oberfinanzdirektion                                              ties v Italian Republic (1)
                            Nürnberg (1)
(Common Customs Tariff — Tariff headings — Tariff                          (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
classification of immunoglobulin concentrates from col-                    Freedom to supply services — Free movement of capital —
  ostrum — Classification in the Combined Nomenclature)                               Business of providing temporary labour)
                          (2002/C 109/16)                                                             (2002/C 109/17)
                   (Language of the case: German)                                               (Language of the case: Italian)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                                              in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-259/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Finanzgericht München (Germany) for a preliminary                In Case C-279/00, Commission of the European Communities
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between                (Agents: E. Traversa and M. Patakia) v Italian Republic (Agent:
Biochem Zusatzstoffe Handels- und Produktions GmbH and                     U. Leanza, assisted by D. Del Gaizo): Application for a
Oberfinanzdirektion Nürnberg, on the interpretation of Chap-               declaration that, by requiring undertakings engaged in the
ter 30 of the Combined Nomenclature, set out in Annex I to                 provision of temporary labour which are established in other
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the                 Member States to maintain their registered office or a branch
tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common                      office on Italian territory, and to lodge a guarantee of ITL
Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1), as amended by                        700 million with a credit institution having its registered office
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2086/97 of 4 November                        or a branch office on Italian territory, the Italian Republic has
1997 (OJ 1997 L 312, p. 1), the Court (Fourth Chamber),                    failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 49 EC and 56 EC,
composed of: D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), acting for the                    the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: F. Macken, President
President of the Fourth Chamber, A. La Pergola and                         of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur),
C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General;                V. Skouris, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 March 2002, in              General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 Febru-
which it has ruled:                                                        ary 2002, in which it:
 ---pagebreak--- C 109/12                   EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                               4.5.2002
1.    Declares that, by requiring undertakings engaged in the                 1.    Declares that, by maintaining in force a tax applicable to
      provision of temporary labour which are established in other                  passengers embarking and disembarking in the ports of Genoa,
      Member States to maintain their registered office or a branch                 Naples and Trieste (Italy) when arriving from or travelling to
      office on Italian territory, and so lodge a guarantee of ITL                  ports in another Member State or a third country, but not in
      700 million with a credit institution having its registered office            the case of carriage between two ports located on Italian
      or a branch office on Italian territory, the Italian Republic has             territory, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
      failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 49 EC and 56 EC.              under Article 1 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 of
                                                                                22 December 1986 applying the principle of freedom to
2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                                 provide services to maritime transport between Member States
                                                                                and between Member States and third countries;
(1) OJ C 259 of 9.9.2000.
                                                                              2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                              (1) OJ C 285 of 7.10.2000.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            (Third Chamber)
                            19 February 2002
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
in Case C-295/00: Commission of the European Communi-
                       ties v Italian Republic (1)
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Infringement of Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86
— Disembarkation/embarkation tax payable by passengers                                                   27 February 2002
— Tax not applicable to passengers travelling between ports
                           on Italian territory)
                                                                              in Case C-302/00: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v French Republic (1)
                             (2002/C 109/18)
                      (Language of the case: Italian)                         (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                                                                              Directives 95/59/EC and 92/79/EEC — Article 95 of the EC
                                                                              Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 90 EC) — Taxes
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                              affecting the consumption of manufactured tobaccos —
                     in the European Court Reports)
                                                                              Minimum reference price for all cigarettes of the same brand
                                                                              — Different rates of tax on dark-tobacco and light-tobacco
                                                                                cigarettes)
In Case C-295/00, Commission of the European Communities
(agents: E. Traversa and B. Mongin) v Italian Republic (agent:
U. Leanza, assisted by G. De Bellis): Application for a                                                   (2002/C 109/19)
declaration that, by maintaining in force a tax applicable to
passengers embarking and disembarking in the ports of Genoa,
Naples and Trieste (Italy) when arriving from or travelling to                                      (Language of the case: French)
ports in another Member State or a third country, but not in
the case of carriage between two ports located on Italian
territory, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
under Article 1 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 of                                          in the European Court Reports)
22 December 1986 applying the principle of freedom to
provide services to maritime transport between Member States
and between Member States and third countries (OJ 1986
L 378, p. 1), the Court (Third Chamber), composed of:
F. Macken, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann and                           In Case C-302/00, Commission of the European Communities
J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), Judges; S. Alber, Advocate Gen-                (Agents: E. Traversa and C. Giolito) v French Republic (Agents:
eral; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 19 February                G. de Bergues and S. Seam): for a declaration that by
2002, in which it:                                                            maintaining in force:


title: Case C-85/16 P: Appeal brought on 12 February 2016 by Kenzo Tsujimoto against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 2 December 2015 in Case T-414/13: Kenzo Tsujimoto v European Union Intellectual Property Office

text:
               12.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 335/27

         Appeal brought on 12 February 2016 by Kenzo Tsujimoto against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 2 December 2015 in Case T-414/13: Kenzo Tsujimoto v European Union Intellectual Property Office
   (Case C-85/16 P)
   (2016/C 335/36)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Kenzo Tsujimoto (represented by: A. Wenninger-Lenz, M. Ring, Rechtsanwältinnen, W. von der Osten-Sacken, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Kenzo

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 2 December 2015 in Case T-414/13;

               —

               give a final ruling on the dispute;

               —

               order EUIPO and Kenzo S.A. to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

                     Infringement of Article 76 (2) CTMR

               Both oppositions brought by KENZO S.A. are based on Article 8 (5) CTMR (1). In both cases, the Board of Appeal took into account evidence in support of the reputation claim which was filed by the Opponent before the Opposition Division in order to establish genuine use of the mark. It is undisputed that the documents concerned were filed after the expiry of the time limits for submitting evidence of the existence, validity and scope of protection of the earlier right pursuant to Rule 19 (1) CTMIR (2). It follows from Rule 19 (1), (2) and 20 (1) CTMIR that an opposition based on Article 8 (5) must be rejected if the opponent fails to prove the reputation of the earlier trademark within the period specified by the Office. Nevertheless, the General Court comes to the conclusion that the Board of Appeal had discretion as to whether the evidence concerned should be taken into account in support of the reputation claim, that the Board recognized and did exercise its discretion and provided proper reasons for taking that evidence into account. The appellant, on the other hand, is of the opinion that the finding of the General Court awarding discretion to the Board of Appeal is flawed by an error in law and amounts to misapplication of Rules 19 (1), (2) and 20 (1) CTMIR.
               The appellant is aware that the other parties to the proceedings claim that the admissibility of the consideration of documents filed in support of genuine use in support of the reputation claim is to be guided not by Rule 20 (1) CTMIR, but by Rule 50, paragraph 1, alinea 3, of Regulation No 2868/95 as a special procedural Rule before the Board of Appeal.
               Even if the discretion of the Board of Appeal were to be construed in line with Rule 50 (1) (iii) CTMR, that discretion was exercised incorrectly by the Board of Appeal and the General Court misapplied Article 76 (2) by approving the Board of Appeal's considerations on the indissociable link between proof of use and proof of reputation as proper exercising of its discretion. In fact, the Board of Appeal did not even determine the scope of its discretion, i.e. by determining whether the discretion in the subject case must be exercised restrictively or not. If the Board of Appeal had exercised its discretion correctly, it should have recognized that the discretion must, in conformity with the Rintisch judgment (Case C-120/12 P, Bernhard Rintisch v. OHIM) be exercised restrictively. In the circumstances, the only way of correctly exercising discretion would have been not to take into consideration the documents supporting the reputation claim. The General Court overlooked the fact that the Board of Appeal failed to correctly determine the scope of its discretion and to apply its discretion within that scope and, by so doing, infringed Article 76 (2) CTMR.

               2.

                     Infringement of Article 8 (5) CTMR

               The appellant claims that the General Court failed to compare the marks ‘KENZO’ and ‘KENZO ESTATE’ as a whole and so infringed Article 8 (5) CTMR. In addition, the appellant claims that the reputation claim was confirmed by the General Court on the basis of documents which should, under proper application of the law and proper exercising of its discretion by the Board of Appeal, not have been taken into account. The appellant further claims that the General Court failed to undertake the necessary global assessment when it concluded that the contested trademark would be likely to be associated with the earlier mark and would take unfair advantage of the earlier mark's reputation. Finally, the appellant submits that the Board of Appeal and the General Court erred when concluding that the appellant had failed to substantiate ‘due cause’ within the meaning of Article 8 (5) CTMR.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark

      OJ L 78, p. 1

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark

      OJ L 303, p. 1


title: Joined Cases C-581/10 and C-629/10: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 23 October 2012 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Köln — Germany, High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) — United Kingdom) — Emeka Nelson, Bill Chinazo Nelson, Brian Cheimezie Nelson v Deutsche Lufthansa AG (C-581/10), TUI Travel plc, British Airways plc, easyJet Airline Company Ltd, International Air Transport Association v Civil Aviation Authority (C-629/10) (Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Articles 5 to 7 — Montreal Convention — Articles 19 and 29 — Right to compensation in the event of delay of flights — Compatibility)

text:
               22.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/3

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 23 October 2012 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Köln — Germany, High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) — United Kingdom) — Emeka Nelson, Bill Chinazo Nelson, Brian Cheimezie Nelson v Deutsche Lufthansa AG (C-581/10), TUI Travel plc, British Airways plc, easyJet Airline Company Ltd, International Air Transport Association v Civil Aviation Authority (C-629/10)
   (Joined Cases C-581/10 and C-629/10) (1)

   (Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Articles 5 to 7 - Montreal Convention - Articles 19 and 29 - Right to compensation in the event of delay of flights - Compatibility)
   2012/C 399/04
   Languages of the case: German and English

      Referring courts

   Amtsgericht Köln, High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Emeka Nelson, Bill Chinazo Nelson, Brian Cheimezie Nelson (C-581/10), TUI Travel plc, British Airways plc, easyJet Airline Company Ltd, International Air Transport Association (C-629/10)

      Defendants: Deutsche Lufthansa AG (C-581/10), Civil Aviation Authority (C-629/10)

      Re:

   (Case C-581/10)
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Amtsgericht Köln — Interpretation of Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1) — Right to compensation if a flight is delayed — Whether that right is compatible with the prohibition of punitive or exemplary damages set out in Article 29 of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air (Montreal Convention), approved by Council Decision of 5 April 2001 (OJ 2001 L 194, p. 38)
   (Case C-629/10)
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) — Interpretation of Articles 5, 6 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1) — Right to compensation in the event of delay — Effects of the judgment in Joined Cases C-402/07 and C-432/07 Sturgeon and Others [2009] ECR I-10923

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Articles 5 to 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, must be interpreted as meaning that passengers whose flights are delayed are entitled to compensation under that regulation where they suffer, on account of such flights, a loss of time equal to or in excess of three hours, that is, where they reach their final destination three hours or more after the arrival time originally scheduled by the air carrier. Such a delay does not, however, entitle passengers to compensation if the air carrier can prove that the long delay is caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken, namely circumstances beyond the actual control of the air carrier.

               2.

               Consideration of the questions referred for a preliminary ruling has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Articles 5 to 7 of Regulation No 261/2004.

      (1)  OJ C 72, 5.3.2011.

      OJ C 89, 19.3.2011.


title: Case F-8/05 REV: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 20 September 2011 — Fouwels and Others v Commission (Staff case — Procedure — Application for revision — Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal — Decision of the Tribunal — Application for revision of an order removing a case from the register following discontinuance — No binding effect — Inadmissibility raised by the Tribunal of its own motion)

text:
               19.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 340/33

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 20 September 2011 — Fouwels and Others v Commission
   (Case F-8/05 REV)
   (Staff case - Procedure - Application for revision - Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal - Decision of the Tribunal - Application for revision of an order removing a case from the register following discontinuance - No binding effect - Inadmissibility raised by the Tribunal of its own motion)
   2011/C 340/64
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Martine Fouwels and Others (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues, C. Bernard-Glanz and A. Blot, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and G. Berscheid, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and J. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for revision by the applicant against the Order of the First Chamber of the Civil Service Tribunal of 16 September 2010, in Joined Cases F-8/05 and F-10/05.

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The application for revision is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               The applicants for revision are ordered to pay the costs of the European Commission.

               3.

               The Council of the European Union, which has intervened in the action for revision, is ordered to bear its own costs.


title: Case T-302/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of 18 April 2008 — Maison de l'Europe Avignon Méditerranée v Commission (Arbitration clause — Creation of an Info Point Europe — Agreement concluded between the Commission and the applicant — Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court of first Instance — Action manifestly unfounded)

text:
               5.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/34

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 18 April 2008 — Maison de l'Europe Avignon Méditerranée v Commission
   (Case T-302/04) (1)

   (Arbitration clause - Creation of an Info Point Europe - Agreement concluded between the Commission and the applicant - Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court of first Instance - Action manifestly unfounded)
   (2008/C 171/61)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Maison de l'Europe Avignon Méditerranée (Avignon, France) (represented by: F. Martineau, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J.F. Pasquier and E. Manhaeve, agents)
   Re:
   Action based on an arbitration clause seeking an order for the Commission to pay the applicants the total sum of EUR 394 066,76 on account of its alleged failure to fulfil contractual obligations arising under the agreement on the creation of an Info Point Europe in Avignon.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               The Maison de l'Europe Avignon Méditerranéeis ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 262, of 23.10.2004.


title: Case T-237/99: Action brought on 15 October 1999 by BP Nederland V.O.F., BP Direct V.O.F. and Actomat B.V. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
22.1.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 20/23
(c) failed to properly evaluate the facts and law which establish        Action brought on 15 October 1999 by BP Nederland
    that the notified agreements do not satisfy the conditions           V.O.F., BP Direct V.O.F. and Actomat B.V. against the
    of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 17.                                          Commission of the European Communities
(1) OJ C 8, p. 4.                                                                                (Case T-237/99)
(2) OJ L 186, p. 28.
                                                                                (2000/C 20/47)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Action brought on 18 October 1999 by Patrick Monod-                      ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Gayraud against the Commission of the European Com-                      European Communities on 15 October 1999 by BP Nederland
                            munities                                     V.O.F., BP Direct V.O.F. and Actomat B.V., respectively estab-
                                                                         lished in Rotterdam, Alphen a/d Rijn and Amsterdam (Nether-
                                                                         lands), represented by Mr van Empel and Mr Smeets, of the
                        (Case T-234/99)
                                                                         Amsterdam Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                         the Chambers of G. Harles, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt.
                         (2000/C 20/46)
                                                                         The applicants claim that the Court should:
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         (a) annul the Commission’s decision [C(1999) 2539 final] (1)
                                                                              of 20 July 1999 concerning State aid granted by the
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                     Netherlands to 633 service stations in the region bordering
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                    Germany and requiring the repayment of State aid granted
European Communities on 18 October 1999 by Patrick Mo-                        by the Netherlands to 450 service stations;
nod-Gayraud, residing in Warsaw (Poland), represented by
Hélène Masse-Dessen, of the Paris Bar, and Viviane Ecker, of the         (b) order the Commission to pay the costs.
Luxembourg Bar, 77 Boulevard Grande Duchesse Charlotte.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Pleas in law and main arguments
— annul the Commission’s decision refusing the benefit of                The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case
    free accommodation;                                                  T-248/99.
— order the Commission to pay the applicant damages
    amounting to EUR 91 200;                                             (1) OJ L 280 of 30.10.1999, p. 87.
— order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The action concerns the defendant’s refusal, dated 29 June               Action brought on 19 October 1999 by Esso Nederland
1999, to accept responsibility for payment of the rent for               B.V. against the Commission of the European Communi-
accommodation used by the applicant, a French civil servant                                             ties
on secondment as an expert to the Commission’s delegation
in Poland.
                                                                                (Case T-242/99)
In support of his claims, the applicant pleads, in particular, the
fact that that decision is contrary to the undertakings pre-                                      (2000/C 20/48)
viously given by the Commission in relation to him.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
He adds that it is not possible to raise against him the argument
that the rent for accommodation cannot be reimbursed to an
official where, as in his case, the accommodation belongs to             An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
the official’s spouse. He never in fact chose to live in an              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
apartment belonging to his wife; that situation arose as a result        European Communities on 19 October 1999 by Esso Neder-
of the attitude adopted by the Commission.                               land B.V., of The Hague (Netherlands), represented by M.H. van
                                                                         der Woude and R.W. Wezenbeek-Geuke, of the Brussels Bar,
                                                                         with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                         J. Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 14 July 2004 in Case T 360/02: Wolf-Dieter Graf Yorck von Wartenburg v Commission of the European Communities (Death of the applicant — No continuance of suit by estate — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               23.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/26

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 14 July 2004
   in Case T 360/02: Wolf-Dieter Graf Yorck von Wartenburg v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Death of the applicant - No continuance of suit by estate - No need to adjudicate)
   (2004/C 262/50)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case T-360/02: Wolf-Dieter Graf Yorck von Wartenburg, former temporary servant of the European Parliament, residing in Wittibreut (Germany), represented by H.-H. Heyland, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against the Commission of the European Communities (Agent: J. Currall, and B. Wägenbaur, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for annulment of a Commission communication of 17 May 2002 concerning the attachment of sums deducted from the pension of the applicant by a national court and compensation for the damage suffered — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, P. Mengozzi and M.E. Martins Ribeiro, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on14 July 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the present action.

               2.

               The parties shall bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 8. 3.2003.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 December 2000 in Case T-105/99: Council of European Municipalities and Regions (CEMR) v Commission of the European Communities (Community law — Principle of effectiveness of Community law — Principle of sound financial management — Set-off between a debt owed to the Commission and sums payable by way of Community contributions)

text:
C 118/34               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       21.4.2001
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 5 December 2000
                      of 14 December 2000
                                                                         in Case T-197/99: Anthony Gooch v Commission of the
in Case T-105/99: Council of European Municipalities                                        European Communities (1)
and Regions (CEMR) v Commission of the European
                         Communities (1)
                                                                         (Officials — Action for annulment — Non-contractual
                                                                         liability of the Community — Place of recruitment —
(Community law — Principle of effectiveness of Community                 Withdrawal of an administrative act — Presumption of
law — Principle of sound financial management — Set-off                                  legality of an administrative act)
between a debt owed to the Commission and sums payable
             by way of Community contributions)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/98)
                         (2001/C 118/97)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                   (Language of the case: French)                        In Case T-197/99: Anthony Gooch, an official of the Com-
                                                                         mission of the European Communities, residing in Brussels,
                                                                         represented by J.-N. Louis, G.-F. Parmentier and V. Peere, of
                                                                         the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
In Case T-105/99: Council of European Municipalities and                 care of Société de Gestion Fiduciaire, 13 Avenue du Bois, v
Regions (CEMR), having its registered office in Paris, represent-        Commission of the European Communities (Agent: C. Berardis-
ed by F. Herbert and F. Renard, of the Brussels Bar, with an             Kayser) — application, first, for annulment of the Com-
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                     mission’s decision of 7 August 1998 rejecting a request for
K. Manhaeve, 56-58 Rue Charles Martel, against Commission                compensation by the applicant and, second, for compensation
of the European Communities (Agents: P. Oliver, K. Simonsson             for the material damage allegedly suffered — the Court of First
and W. Neirinck) — application for annulment of the decision             Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of: R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas,
of the Commission, contained in the letter of 15 February                President, and P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio
1999 to the applicant, effecting set-off between their mutual            González, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judg-
claims — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber),                   ment on 5 December 2000, in which it:
composed of: V. Tiili, President, R.M. Moura Ramos and
P. Mengozzi, Judges; G. Herzig, Administrator, for the Regis-
trar, has given a judgment on 14 December 2000, in which it:             1.    Annuls the Commission’s decision of 7 August 1998 rejecting
                                                                               the applicant’s request for compensation;
1.    Annuls the decision of the Commission, contained in the letter
      of 15 February 1999 to the applicant, effecting set-off between    2.    Orders the Commission to pay to the applicant damages in the
      their mutual claims;                                                     sum of BEF 154 109 by way of compensation for the material
                                                                               damage suffered by him, together with default interest thereon
                                                                               at the annual rate of 6,75 % from 28 April 1998;
2.    Orders the Commission to pay all the costs.
                                                                         3.    Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999.


title: Case T-159/00: Action brought on 14 June 2000 by Suproco NV against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 259/26                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        9.9.2000
—     Is contrary to Article 253 EC.                                     (4) order the Commission to pay the costs.
—     Found a dumping margin of 7,6 % and imposed anti-
      dumping duties of EUR 5,19 per tonne on the Applicant.             Pleas in law and main arguments
      Had the above breaches of Community law not been
      made, only the minimis dumping would have been found               The pleas in law and principal arguments are the same as in
      and no duties should have been imposed.                            Case T-110/00 (2).
                                                                         (1) OJ L 56 of 1.3.2000, p. 39.
(1) OJEC L 75, of 24.3.2000, p. 3.
                                                                         (2) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000, p. 30.
(2) Council Regulation EC No 384/96, of 22 December 1996, on
    protection against dumping imports from countries not members
    of the European Community (OJEC L 56, of 6.3.1996, p. 1).
                                                                         Action brought on 16 June 2000 by Appel & Frenzel
                                                                         GmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the
                                                                                Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Action brought on 14 June 2000 by Suproco NV against                                              (Case T-168/00)
       the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (2000/C 259/48)
                         (Case T-159/00)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                         (2000/C 259/47)
                                                                         An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                         Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)                        Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                         16 June 2000 by Appel & Frenzel GmbH, of Düsseldorf
                                                                         (Federal Republic of Germany), represented by Johann-Chris-
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         toph Gaedertz, Rechtsanwalt, of Gaedertz Rechtsanwälte,
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         Bockenheimer Landstraße 98-100, Frankfurt (Federal Republic
European Communities on 14 June 2000 by Suproco NV,
                                                                         of Germany).
represented by R.J. van Agteren, of the Rotterdam Bar, and
M.M. Slotboom, of the Rotterdam and Brussels Bars, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
M. Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe.
                                                                         —     amend Decision R 263/1999-3 of the Third Board of
                                                                               Appeal, dated 13 April 2000, and order registration of
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                    the mark ‘Tönnchen’ as a Community trade mark in
                                                                               accordance with the annexed illustration.
(1) declare the action brought by Suproco admissible;
(2) annul Regulation No 465/2000 (1) of 29 February 2000                 Pleas in law and main arguments
      introducing safeguard measures for imports from the
      overseas countries and territories of sugar sector products        The trade mark con-             ‘Tönnchen’      —      application
      with EC/OCT cumulation of origin;                                  cerned:                         No 624189
                                                                         Goods or service con-           Class 30 goods (mustard)
(3) rule that the Community is liable for the damage suffered
                                                                         cerned:
      by Suproco as a result of the safeguard measure and that
      the parties should seek to reach agreement on the extent           Decision         contested      Refusal of registration by the
      of the damage suffered by Suproco, and order that, if no           before the Board of             examiner
      such agreement is reached within a time-limit to be                Appeal:
      specified by the Court, the proceedings are to continue
      with a view to determining the quantum of the damage,              Grounds of claim:               — incorrect finding by the Board
      and order the Community in any event to pay the                                                        of Appeal that the mark has
      damages provisionally quantified and yet to be quantified,                                             no distinctive character
      alternatively to pay such compensation as the Court may
      deem fair and equitable, together with interest thereon
      from the date of the application until payment in full;


title: Case T-556/10: Judgment of the General Court of 11 October 2012 — Novatex v Council (Subsidies — Imports of certain types of polyethylene terephthalate originating in Iran, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates — Definitive countervailing duty and definitive collection of provisional duty — Article 3(1) and (2), Article 6(b), and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 597/2009)

text:
               24.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 366/32

         Judgment of the General Court of 11 October 2012 — Novatex v Council
   (Case T-556/10) (1)

   (Subsidies - Imports of certain types of polyethylene terephthalate originating in Iran, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates - Definitive countervailing duty and definitive collection of provisional duty - Article 3(1) and (2), Article 6(b), and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 597/2009)
   2012/C 366/61
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Novatex Ltd (Karachi, Pakistan) (represented by: B. Servais, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen, Agent, assisted by G. Berrisch, lawyer, and N. Chesaites, Barrister)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet, M. França and G. Luengo, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 857/2010 of 27 September 2010 imposing a definitive countervailing duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain types of polyethylene terephthalate originating in Iran, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates (OJ 2010 L 254, p. 10), in so far as it concerns the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Article 1 of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 857/2010 of 27 September 2010 imposing a definitive countervailing duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain types of polyethylene terephthalate originating in Iran, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates in so far as it concerns Novatex Ltd, in so far as the definitive countervailing duty for imports of certain types of polyethylene terephthalate into the European Union exceeds that applicable in the absence of the error concerning the amount indicated in line 74 of the 2008 tax return.

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder.

               3.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to pay its own costs and 50 % of those incurred by Novatex. Novatex is ordered to bear 50 % of its own costs. The European Commission is ordered to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 30, 29.1.2011.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 July 2000 in Case C-236/99: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to transpose Directive 91/271/EEC)

text:
21.10.2000                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 302/13
Court) Münster, Germany, for a preliminary ruling in the                     of Belgium (Agent: A. Snoecx, assisted by F.P. Louis and
proceedings pending before that court between Viktor Movrin                  A. Vallery) — application for a declaration that, by communi-
and Landesversicherungsanstalt Westfalen (Regional Insurance                 cating to the Commission a programme for the implemen-
Office, Westphalia) on the interpretation of the EC Treaty and               tation of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991
of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on                    concerning urban waste water treatment (OJ 1991 L 135,
the application of social security schemes to employed persons,              p. 40) which does not comply with the directive as regards the
to self-employed persons and to members of their families                    Brussels-Capital Region, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to
moving within the Community, as amended and updated by                       fulfil its obligations under that directive and, in particular,
Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 (OJ                     Article 17 thereof — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed
1997 L 28, p. 1) the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:                     of: J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, President of the Chamber,
J.C. Moitinho de Almeida (Rapporteur), President of the                      R. Schintgen, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and F. Macken (Rap-
Chamber, R. Schintgen, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet and                      porteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; D. Louterman-
V. Skouris, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; H. von                    Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a                   judgment on 6 July 2000, in which it:
judgment on 6 July 2000, in which it held that:
                                                                             1.    Declares that, by communicating to the Commission a pro-
On a proper construction of Article 1(t) and Article 10(1) of Council              gramme for the implementation of Council Directive
Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application                     91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water
of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed                   treatment which does not comply with that directive as regards
persons and to members of their families moving within the                         the Brussels-Capital Region, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed
Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC)                       to fulfil its obligations under Article 17 of that directive;
No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, a sickness insurance contribution
subsidy provided for in the legislation of a Member State, such as the       2.    Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
subsidy at issue in the main proceedings, constitutes an old-age cash
benefit for the purposes of those provisions. The recipient of an old-
age pension payable under that legislation may claim such a subsidy          (1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.
even if he is resident in another Member State where he is compulsorily
affiliated to the sickness insurance scheme.
(1) OJ C 136 of 15.5.1999.
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 21 June 2000
                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                    in Case C-514/99: French Republic v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
                            (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                (Application for annulment — Manifest inadmissibility)
                              of 6 July 2000
                                                                                (2000/C 302/24)
in Case C-236/99: Commission of the European Communi-
                    ties v Kingdom of Belgium (1)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure
                 to transpose Directive 91/271/EEC)
                                                                             (Provisional translation: the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                             (2000/C 302/23)
                                                                             In Case C-514/99: French Republic (Agents: R. Abraham,
                       (Language of the case: French)                        K. Rispal-Bellanger and R. Loosli-Surrans) v Commission of
                                                                             the European Communities (Agents: D. Booß and G. Berscheid)
                                                                             — application for annulment of the Commission’s decision
                                                                             refusing to modify or revoke its Decision 1999/514/EC of
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       23 July 1999 setting the date on which dispatch from the
                      in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             United Kingdom of bovine products under the date-based
                                                                             export scheme may commence by virtue of Article 6(5) of
In Case C-236/99: Commission of the European Communities                     Council Decision 98/256/EC (OJ 1999 L 195, p. 42) — the
(Agents: G. Valero Jordana and O. Couvert-Castéra) v Kingdom                 Court, composed of. G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President,


title: Case T-228/09: Judgment of the General Court of 13 April 2011 — United States Polo Association v OHIM — Textiles CMG (U.S. POLO ASSN.) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark U.S. POLO ASSN. — Earlier Community and national word marks POLO-POLO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               28.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 160/19

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 April 2011 — United States Polo Association v OHIM — Textiles CMG (U.S. POLO ASSN.)
   (Case T-228/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark U.S. POLO ASSN. - Earlier Community and national word marks POLO-POLO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2011/C 160/26
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: United States Polo Association (Lexington, Kentucky, United States) (represented by: P. Goldenbaum, I. Rohr and T. Melchert, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Textiles CMG, SA (Onteniente, Spain)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 March 2009 (Case R 886/2008-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Textiles CMG, SA and United States Polo Association.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders United States Polo Association to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 180, 1.8.2009.


title: Case T-229/10: Judgment of the General Court of 15 June 2011 — Graf-Syteco v OHIM — Teco Electric & Machinery (SYTECO) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark SYTECO — Earlier figurative national and Benelux marks TECO — Relative grounds for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — No similarity between the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Partial refusal to register)

text:
               23.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 219/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 June 2011 — Graf-Syteco v OHIM — Teco Electric & Machinery (SYTECO)
   (Case T-229/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark SYTECO - Earlier figurative national and Benelux marks TECO - Relative grounds for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - No similarity between the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Partial refusal to register)
   2011/C 219/20
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Graf-Syteco GmbH & Co. KG (Tuningen, Germany) (represented by: T. Kieser, lawyer)

      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: Teco Electric & Machinery Co. Ltd (Taipei, Taiwan)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 February 2010 (Case R 230/2009-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Teco Electric & Machinery Co. Ltd and Graf-Syteco GmbH & Co. KG

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Graf-Syteco GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 195, 17.7.2010.


title: Case C-153/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken v K, A (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2003/86/EC — Article 7(2) — Family reunification — Integration measures — National legislation requiring the family members of a third country national residing lawfully in that Member State to pass a civic integration exam in order to enter the territory of that Member State — Costs of such an exam — Compatibility)

text:
               7.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/8

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken v K, A
   (Case C-153/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2003/86/EC - Article 7(2) - Family reunification - Integration measures - National legislation requiring the family members of a third country national residing lawfully in that Member State to pass a civic integration exam in order to enter the territory of that Member State - Costs of such an exam - Compatibility))
   (2015/C 294/10)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Raad van State

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken

      Defendant: K, A

      Operative part of the judgment

   The first subparagraph of Article 7(2) of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification must be interpreted as meaning that Member States may require third country nationals to pass a civic integration examination, such as the one at issue in the main proceedings, which consists in an assessment of basic knowledge both of the language of the Member State concerned and of its society and which entails the payment of various costs, before authorising that national’s entry into and residence in the territory of the Member State for the purposes of family reunification, provided that the conditions of application of such a requirement do not make it impossible or excessively difficult to exercise the right to family reunification. In circumstances such as those of the cases in the main proceedings, in so far as they do not allow regard to be had to special circumstances objectively forming an obstacle to the applicants passing the examination and in so far as they set the fees relating to such an examination at too high a level, those conditions make the exercise of the right to family reunification impossible or excessively difficult.

      (1)  OJ C 194, 24.6.2014.


title: Case T-400/11: Action brought on 29 July 2011 — Altadis v Commission

text:
               24.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/37

         Action brought on 29 July 2011 — Altadis v Commission
   (Case T-400/11)
   2011/C 282/72
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Altadis, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, R. Calvo Salinero, and M. Muñoz de Juan, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               admit and uphold the request for evidence;

               —

               admit and uphold the pleas for annulment contained in the application;

               —

               annul Article 1(1) of the contested decision in so far as it declares that Article 12(5) of the Texto Refundido de la Ley del Impuesto sobre Sociedades (‘TRLIS’) (consolidated text of the Law on Corporation Tax) contains elements of State aid when it applies to acquisitions of shareholdings entailing acquisition of control;

               —

               alternatively, annul Article 4 of the contested decision in so far as it makes the recovery order applicable to transactions completed prior to the publication in the Official Journal of the European Union of the final decision which is the subject-matter of this action;

               —

               alternatively, annul Article 1(1), and in the further alternative Article 4, of the contested decision in so far as they relate to transactions in Morocco;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   This action is brought against Commission Decision C(2010) 9566 of 12 January 2011 on the tax amortisation of financial goodwill for foreign shareholding acquisitions.
   The pleas in law and main arguments are those already raised in Case T-399/11 Banco de Santander and Santusa Holding v Commission.


title: Case C-533/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 3 December 2008 — TNT Express Nederland BV v AXA Versicherung AG

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/32

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 3 December 2008 — TNT Express Nederland BV v AXA Versicherung AG
   (Case C-533/08)
   (2009/C 44/53)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: TNT Express Nederland BV

      Respondent: AXA Versicherung AG
   Questions referred

               1.

               Must the second subparagraph of Article 71(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (1) of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters be interpreted as meaning: (i) that the rules on recognition and enforcement laid down in Regulation No 44/2001 yield to those of a special convention only if the rules of the special convention claim exclusivity; or (ii) that, in the event of the simultaneous applicability of the conditions for recognition and enforcement laid down in the special convention and those laid down in Regulation No 44/2001, the conditions laid down in the special convention must always be applied and those laid down in Regulation No 44/2001 are not to be applied, even though the special convention makes no claim to exclusive effect vis-à-vis other international rules on recognition and enforcement?

               2.

               Does the Court of Justice have jurisdiction, with a view to forestalling divergent judgments in respect of the concurrence referred to in the first question, to interpret — in a manner binding on the courts of the Member States — the Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road, signed in Geneva on 19 May 1956 (the CMR Convention), in so far as the matters governed by Article 31 of that convention are concerned?

               3.

               If the answer to the second question is in the affirmative and the answer to part (i) of the first question is likewise in the affirmative, must the rules on recognition and enforcement laid down in Article 31(3) and (4) of the CMR Convention be interpreted as meaning that that convention does not claim exclusivity and leaves room for the application of other international enforcement rules making recognition or enforcement possible, such as Regulation No 44/2001?
               Should the Court of Justice answer part (ii) of the first question in the affirmative and likewise answer the second question in the affirmative, the Hoge Raad also refers the following three questions for the further appraisal of the appeal in cassation:

               4.

               In the event of an application for a declaration of enforceability, does Article 31(3) and (4) of the CMR Convention permit the court of the State addressed to examine whether the court of the State of origin had international jurisdiction to take cognisance of the dispute?

               5.

               Must Article 71(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of the concurrence of the lis pendens rules of the CMR Convention and those of Regulation No 44/2001, the lis pendens rules of the CMR Convention take precedence over those of Regulation No 44/2001?

               6.

               Do the declaration in law applied for in the present case in the Netherlands and the action in Germany seeking compensation in respect of damage relate to ‘the same grounds’ within the meaning of Article 31(2) of the CMR Convention?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1).