title: Case T-304/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 November 2008 — Calzaturificio Frau v OHIM — Camper (Representation of a stylised arch with the surface in solid colour) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for a Community figurative mark representing a stylised arch with the surface in solid colour — Earlier Community figurative mark representing a stylised arch — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               20.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 327/23

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 November 2008 — Calzaturificio Frau v OHIM — Camper (Representation of a stylised arch with the surface in solid colour)
   (Case T-304/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for a Community figurative mark representing a stylised arch with the surface in solid colour - Earlier Community figurative mark representing a stylised arch - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2008/C 327/41)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Calzaturificio SpA (San Giovanni Ilarione, Italy) (represented by: A. Rizzoli, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: O. Montalto and L. Rampini, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Camper, SL (Inca, Spain) (represented by: I. Temiño Ceniceros, lawyer)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 June 2007 in Case R 768/2006-1 relating to opposition proceedings between Camper, SL and Calzaturificio Frau SpA
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Calzaturificio Frau SpA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 235, 6.10.2007.


title: Case T-58/11 P: Appeal brought on 25 January 2011 by Michel Nolin against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 1 December 2010 in Case F-82/09, Nolin v Commission

text:
               19.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/23

         Appeal brought on 25 January 2011 by Michel Nolin against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 1 December 2010 in Case F-82/09, Nolin v Commission
   (Case T-58/11 P)
   2011/C 89/46
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Michel Nolin (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) delivered on 1 December 2010 in Case F-82/09 (Michel Nolin v Commission);

               —

               and, giving judgment itself,

                           —

                           annul the decision of 19 December 2008 of the Director-General of the Personnel and Administration Directorate-General of the European Commission, to cancel all of the appellant's merit points and priority points following his promotion to grade AD 13 under Article 29(1)(a)(iii) of the Staff Regulations;

                           —

                           order the Commission to pay the costs in both sets of proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on two pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea, alleging infringement of the principles of legality and legal certainty, since the CST erred in law in deciding that the Commission was entitled, with no legal basis, to base the contested decision on the general scheme of the general implementing provisions under Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union.

               2.

               Second plea, alleging misapplication of the principle of non-discrimination, since the CST erred in law (i) in deciding that the Director-General of the Personnel and Administration Directorate-General had residual power which had not been legally conferred on him by a decision of the appointing authority in accordance with Article 2(ii) of the Staff Regulations and (ii) in deciding that officials promoted pursuant to Articles 29 and 45 of the Staff Regulations would, following their appointment or promotion, be in the same legal situation, even though that situation would not be the same either in terms of procedure or in terms of duties and responsibilities.


title: Action brought on 29 January 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg Case C-33/04

text:
20.3.2004             EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 71/13
The Commission claims that the agreement of 15 September                 Action brought on 29 January 2004 by the Commission
1999 to transfer the responsibility for the collection and               of the European Communities against the French Republic
treatment of waste from the municipality of Mödling to
AbfallGmbH does not fall to be classified as an ‘internal                                           (Case C-32/04)
transfer’ within the administration of the municipality of
Mödling, as the municipality of Mödling ceased to exercise the
control over AbfallGmbH that it would have over its own                                             (2004/C 71/21)
departments. The transfer of responsibility for the carrying out
of public services accordingly involves a public service contract
which was subject to the compulsory tender procedure.                    An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                         Court of Justice of the European Communities on 29 January
                                                                         2004 by the Commission of the European Communities,
(1) OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1.
                                                                         represented by U. Wölker and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents,
                                                                         with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                         The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                         the Court should:
Action brought on 29 January 2004 by the Commission                      —     declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of                             and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                              Spain                                            Commission Directive 2001/58/EC of 27 July 2001
                                                                               amending for the second time Directive 91/155/EEC
                         (Case C-31/04)                                        defining and laying down the detailed arrangements for
                                                                               the system of specific information relating to dangerous
                         (2004/C 71/20)                                        preparations in implementation of Article 14 of European
                                                                               Parliament and Council Directive 1999/45/EC and relat-
                                                                               ing to dangerous substances in implementation of
                                                                               Article 27 of Council Directive 67/548/EEC (safety data
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before                      sheets) (1), or, in any event, by failing to inform the
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 29 Janu-                   Commission thereof, the French Republic has failed to
ary 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities,                        fulfil its obligations under that directive;
represented by K. Banks and F. Castillo de la Torre, of the
Commission’s Legal Service, with an address for service in               —     order the French Republic to pay the costs.
Luxembourg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Pleas in law and main arguments
—     declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with             The period for transposition of the directive expired on 30 July
      Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of             2002.
      the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of
      certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the
                                                                         (1) OJ 2001 L 212, p. 24.
      information society (1), or in any event by failing to
      communicate those provisions to the Commission, the
      Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      Article 13 of that directive.
—     order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
                                                                         Action brought on 29 January 2004 by the Commission
                                                                         of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                    of Luxembourg
The period prescribed by the Directive for its transposition                                         Case C-33/04
into national law expired on 22 December 2002.
                                                                                (2004/C 71/22)
(1) OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10.
                                                                         An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
                                                                         brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties on 29 January 2004 by the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities, represented by W. Wils and M. Shotter, acting
                                                                         as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
 ---pagebreak--- C 71/14               EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                        20.3.2004
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                  Action brought on 29 January 2004 by the Commission
the Court should declare that:                                          of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the
                                                                                Netherlands
—     by failing to comply with the obligation to verify the
      compliance of cost accounting systems by an independent
      competent body and to publish a statement of compliance                                     (Case C-34/04)
      for 1998 and 1999, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
      has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(5) of
      Directive 97/33/EC of the European Parliament and of                                        (2004/C 71/23)
      the Council of 30 June 1997 on interconnection in
      telecommunications with regard to ensuring universal
      service and interoperability through application of the
      principles of Open Network Provision (ONP) (1);
                                                                        An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought
—     by failing in practice to apply correctly the measures            before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
      adopted for the purpose of implementing Article 18(1)             on 29 January 2004 by the Commission of the European
      and (2) of Directive 98/10/EC as regards verification of          Communities, represented by T. van Rijn and C. Diderich,
      the compliance of the cost accounting system by the               acting as Agents.
      national regulatory authority or another competent body,
      independent of the telecommunications organisation and
      approved by the national regulatory authority, and as
      regards annual publication of a statement of compliance,          The applicant claims that the Court should:
      the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its
      obligations under Article 18 of Directive 98/10/EC of the
                                                                        —     declare that, by failing to withdraw the fishing licences
      European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February
                                                                              granted to the fishing vessels WIRON III and WIRON IV
      1998 on the application of open network provision
                                                                              following the definitive transfer of those vessels to
      (ONP) to voice telephony and on universal service for
                                                                              Argentina, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to
      telecommunications in a competitive environment (2).
                                                                              fulfil its obligations under Article 5 of Regulation (EC)
                                                                              No 3690/93 of 20 December 1993 establishing a Com-
                                                                              munity system laying down rules for the minimum
                                                                              information to be contained in fishing licences;
Pleas in law and main arguments:
                                                                        —     order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.
The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has not yet adopted all the
measures necessary in order to ensure the full transposition
and implementation of Article 7(5) of Directive 97/33 as
regards:                                                                Pleas in law and main arguments
—     verification of the compliance of the cost accounting
      system by the national regulatory authority or another            Under the Agreement on relations in the sea fisheries sector
      competent body;                                                   between the European Economic Community and the Argen-
                                                                        tine Republic (OJ 1993 L 318, p. 2), the fishing vessels WIRON
                                                                        III and WIRON IV, which flew the Netherlands flag and were
—     annual publication of a statement of compliance.                  registered in the Netherlands, were transferred to Argentina.
                                                                        The vessels were removed from the Netherlands register of
                                                                        fishing vessels, transferred to Argentina and registered there in
                                                                        the national shipping register. The Commission discovered
As regards Directive 98/10, verification of the compliance of           that the fishing licences granted to the vessels WIRON III and
the cost accounting system of the operator Entreprise des               WIRON IV had been used again for other vessels. Such conduct
Postes et Télécommunications (EPT) has not yet taken place.             is inconsistent with the obligation imposed on the Netherlands
In addition, no statement concerning compliance has been                under Article 5 of Regulation No 3690/93 to withdraw
published.                                                              the fishing licences of vessels which have been definitively
                                                                        withdrawn from fishing activities. From the Community’s
                                                                        point of view, the definitive transfer of a vessel to a non-
(1) OJ 1997 L 199, p. 32.                                               member country is equivalent to the definitive withdrawal of
(2) OJ 1998 L 101, p. 24.                                               that vessel from fishing activity.


title: Case C-586/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio (Italy) lodged on 29 December 2008 — Angelo Rubino v Ministero dell'Università e della Ricerca

text:
               7.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/19

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio (Italy) lodged on 29 December 2008 — Angelo Rubino v Ministero dell'Università e della Ricerca
   (Case C-586/08)
   (2009/C 55/30)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Angelo Rubino

      Defendant: Ministero dell'Università e della Ricerca
   Question referred
   Is it contrary to the Community principles concerning the abolition of obstacles to the free movement of persons and services between Member States of the Community, and the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications, set out in Articles 3(1)(c) and 47(1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, and the provisions contained in Directive 2005/36/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, for national legislation, such as the Italian rules laid down in Legislative Decree 206/2007, to exclude university lecturers from the scope of the regulated professions for purposes of the recognition of professional qualifications?

      (1)  OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22.


title: Case C-26/13: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 30 April 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — Árpád Kásler, Hajnalka Káslerné Rábai v OTP Jelzálogbank Zrt (Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in a contract concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer — Articles 4(2) and 6(1) — Assessment of the unfairness of the contractual terms — Exclusion of terms relating to the main subjectmatter of the contract or the adequacy of the price and the remuneration provided they are drafted in plain intelligible language — Consumer credit contracts denominated in foreign currency — Terms relating to the exchange rate — Difference between the buying rate of exchange applicable to the advance of the loan and the selling rate of exchange applicable to its repayment — Powers of the national court when dealing with a term considered to be unfair — Substitution of the unfair term by a supplementary provision of national law — Whether lawful)

text:
               24.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/5

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 30 April 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — Árpád Kásler, Hajnalka Káslerné Rábai v OTP Jelzálogbank Zrt
   (Case C-26/13) (1)

   ((Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in a contract concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer - Articles 4(2) and 6(1) - Assessment of the unfairness of the contractual terms - Exclusion of terms relating to the main subjectmatter of the contract or the adequacy of the price and the remuneration provided they are drafted in plain intelligible language - Consumer credit contracts denominated in foreign currency - Terms relating to the exchange rate - Difference between the buying rate of exchange applicable to the advance of the loan and the selling rate of exchange applicable to its repayment - Powers of the national court when dealing with a term considered to be unfair - Substitution of the unfair term by a supplementary provision of national law - Whether lawful))
   2014/C 194/05
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Kúria

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Árpád Kásler, Hajnalka Káslerné Rábai

      Defendant: OTP Jelzálogbank Zrt

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Kúria — Interpretation of Art. 4(2) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29) — Assessment of unfairness of contractual terms — Loan contract denominated in a foreign currency and a mortgage concluded between an individual and a bank, under which the payment and repayment of the loan are to be made in the national currency — Debt calculated, at the time the contract was concluded, on the basis of the buying rate of the foreign currency — Term providing that the monthly instalments to be paid are determined by suing the current selling rate of the currency and not the buying rate

      Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               Article 4(2) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that:

                           —

                           the expression the ‘main subjectmatter of a contract’ covers a term, incorporated in a loan agreement denominated in foreign currency concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer and not individually negotiated, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, pursuant to which the selling rate of exchange of that currency is applied for the purpose of calculating the repayment instalments for the loan, only in so far as it is found, which it is for the national court to ascertain having regard to the nature, general scheme and stipulations of the contract and its legal and factual context, that that term lays down an essential obligation of that agreement which, as such characterises it;

                           —

                           such a term, in so far as it contains a pecuniary obligation for the consumer to pay, in repayment of instalments of the loan, the difference between the selling rate of exchange and the buying rate of exchange of the foreign currency, cannot be considered as ‘remuneration’ the adequacy of which as consideration for a service supplied by the lender cannot be the subject of an examination as regards unfairness under Article 4(2) of Directive 93/13.

               2)

               Article 4(2) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that, as regards a contractual term such as that at issue in the main proceedings, the requirement that a contractual term must be drafted in plain intelligible language is to be understood as requiring not only that the relevant term should be grammatically intelligible to the consumer, but also that the contract should set out transparently the specific functioning of the mechanism of conversion for the foreign currency to which the relevant term refers and the relationship between that mechanism and that provided for by other contractual terms relating to the advance of the loan, so that that consumer is in a position to evaluate, on the basis of clear, intelligible criteria, the economic consequences for him which derive from it.

               3)

               Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in which a contract concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer cannot continue in existence after an unfair term has been deleted, that provision does not preclude a rule of national law enabling the national court to cure the invalidity of that term by substituting for it a supplementary provision of national law.

      (1)  OJ C 156, 1. 6. 2013.


title: Case T-226/01: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 September 2006 — CAS Succhi di Frutta SpA v Commission (Non-contractual liability — Tendering procedure — Payment in kind — Damage suffered on the market in question due to the payment in kind — Causal link)

text:
               18.11.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/29

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 September 2006 — CAS Succhi di Frutta SpA v Commission
   (Case T-226/01) (1)

   (Non-contractual liability - Tendering procedure - Payment in kind - Damage suffered on the market in question due to the payment in kind - Causal link)
   (2006/C 281/47)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: CAS Succhi di Frutta SpA (Castagnaro, Italy) (represented by: G. Roberti, F. Sciaudone and A. Franchi, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Cattabriga and L. Visaggio, Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)
   Re:
   Application for compensation for the damage allegedly caused by Commission Decisions C (96) 1916 of 22 July 1996 and C (96) 2208 of 6 September 1996, adopted in the context of Commission Regulation (EC) No 228/96 of 7 February 1996 on the supply of fruit juice and fruit jams intended for the people of Armenia and Azerbaijan (OJ 1996 L 30, p. 18).
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 331, 24.11.2001.


title: Case C-305/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main by order of 1 August 2000 in the case of Christian Schulin v Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungs GmbH

text:
21.10.2000              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 302/17
      ascertaining whether or not the contracts for the lease or           No 2100/94, using the variety in question or has at least
      sale of those quotas are lawful, that those originally               — otherwise — used that variety on his holding?
      allocated to the transferor were inaccurately determined,
      for reasons for which the authorities are not responsible?
                                                                           (1) OJ L 227 of 1.9.1994, p. 1.
                                                                           (2) OJ L 173 of 25.7.1995, p. 14.
(2) Are the abovementioned provisions of Community law
      valid, in the light of Article 33 (ex Article 39) of the
      Treaty, in so far as they do not provide, in the case
      of subsequent verification of the individual reference
      quantities leased or sold, for the possibility of retrospec-
      tive allocation of the quota, correcting the quantities
      incorrectly stated in the notices on account of facts for
      which the authorities are not responsible?                           Appeal brought on 17 August 2000 by the Commission
                                                                           of the European Communities against the judgment deliv-
                                                                           ered on 8 June 2000 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court
                                                                           of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined
                                                                           Cases T-79/96, T-260/97 and T-117/98 between, on the
(1) OJ L 405 of 31.12.1992, p. 1.                                          one hand, Camar srl, applicant in Cases T-79/96, T-260/97
(2) OJ L 57 of 10.3.1993, p. 12. The number of this Regulation has         and T-117/98, and Tico srl, applicant in Case T-117/98,
    been corrected, since it was incorrectly cited in the request for a    the applicant in Case T-79/96 being supported by the
    preliminary ruling.                                                    Italian Republic, and, on the other hand, the Commission
                                                                           of the European Communities, defendant in Cases
                                                                           T-79/96, T-260/97 and T-117/98, and the Council of the
                                                                           European Union, defendant in Case T-260/97, supported
                                                                           by the French Republic, intervener in Cases T-79/96 and
                                                                                T-260/97
                                                                                (Case C-312/00 P)
                                                                                (2000/C 302/34)
                                                                           An appeal against the judgment delivered on 8 June 2000 by
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesge-                    the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
richt Frankfurt am Main by order of 1 August 2000 in the                   European Communities in Joined Cases T-79/96, T-260/97
case of Christian Schulin v Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungs                    and T-117/98 between, on the one hand, Camar srl, applicant
                               GmbH                                        in Cases T-79/96, T-260/97 and T-117/98, and Tico srl,
                                                                           applicant in Case T-117/98, the applicant in Case T-79/96
                                                                           being supported by the Italian Republic, and, on the other
                         (Case C-305/00)                                   hand, the Commission of the European Communities, defend-
                                                                           ant in Cases T-79/96, T-260/97 and T-117/98, and the Council
                                                                           of the European Union, defendant in Case T-260/97, supported
                         (2000/C 302/33)                                   by the French Republic, intervener in Cases T-79/96 and
                                                                           T-260/97, was brought before the Court of Justice of the
                                                                           European Communities on 17 August 2000 by the Com-
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     mission of the European Communities, represented by Chris-
European Communities by order of 1 August 2000 by the                      topher Van der Hauwaert and Luca Visaggio, of its Legal
Oberlandesgericht (Higher Regional Court) Frankfurt am Main,               Service, acting as Agents, assisted by Alberto Dal Ferro, of the
which was received at the Court Registry on 11 August 2000,                Vicenza Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Christian Schulin v                office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner
Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungs GmbH on the following ques-                    Centre, Kirchberg.
tion:
                                                                           The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           —     set aside the contested judgment;
Are the provisions of Article 14(3), sixth indent, of Council
Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 of 27 July 1994(1), in conjunc-
tion with Article 8 of Commission Regulation (EC)                          and consequently:
No 1768/95 of 24 July 1995 (2), to be construed as meaning
that the owner of a plant variety which is protected under                 —     declare the application in Case T-79/96 unfounded;
Regulation No 2100/94 can require any farmer to provide the
information specified in the above provisions irrespective of              —     declare the application in Case T-260/97 unfounded,
whether there is anything to suggest that the farmer has carried                 including the claim for compensation for damage suf-
out any act, within the meaning of Article 13(2) of Regulation                   fered;


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 24 March 1998 in Case T-232/97 Micheline Becret-Danieau and Others v. European Parliament (Officials - Action for annulment - Remuneration statements - Inadmissibility - Time-limits - New substantial fact - Time-bar)

text:
16.5.98               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 151/9
Communities Ð the Court of First Instance (Third                        ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Chamber), composed of V. Tiili, President, C. P. BrieÈt and                              of 24 March 1998
A. Potocki, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
25 March 1998, the operative part of which is as follows:          in Case T-232/97 Micheline Becret-Danieau and Others
                                                                                v. European Parliament (1)
                                                                   (Officials Ð Action for annulment Ð Remuneration
1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible.                   statements Ð Inadmissibility Ð Time-limits Ð New
                                                                                substantial fact Ð Time-bar)
                                                                                (98/C 151/19)
2. Each party is to bear its own costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(1) OJ C 7, 10.1.1998.
                                                                   In Case T-232/97 Micheline Becret-Danieau, Jeremiah
                                                                   Cadogan, Madeleine Mesenburg, Rainer Moriarty, Anne-
                                                                   Marie Nilles, Teresa Rodrigues, Fernando Simoes, Jean-
                                                                   Louis Spellini, Jeanne Pica-Borruto and Nicole Schulte,
                                                                   officials of the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                   Communities,       residing    respectively  in   Bertrange
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                          (Luxembourg),         Steinsel     (Luxembourg),       Biwer
                                                                   (Luxembourg), Colmar-Berg (Luxembourg), Mamer
                       (Second Chamber)                            (Luxembourg), Mondercange (Luxembourg), Munsbach
                       of 12 March 1998                            (Luxembourg), Bascharage (Luxembourg), Thionville
                                                                   (France) and Leudelange (Luxembourg), represented by
in Case T-207/97: Georges Berthu v. Council of the                 Jean-NoeÈl Louis, Ariane Tornel and FrancËoise Parmentier,
                     European Union (1)                            of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service at the
                                                                   offices of Fiduciaire Myson sarl, 30 Rue de Cessange v.
(Economic and monetary policy Ð Council Regulation on              the European Parliament (Agents: Manfred Peter and
certain provisions relating to the introduction of the euro        Yannis Pantalis) Ð application for the annulment of the
Ð Replacement of the name ecu' provided for by                    express decisions rejecting the applicants' requests for
Article 109g of the EC Treaty by the name euro' Ð                 reimbursement of the sums deducted from their household
     Action for annulment Ð Manifest inadmissibility)              allowance pursuant to Article 67(2) of the Staff
                         (98/C 151/18)                             Regulations of officials of the European Communities on
                                                                   the ground of the household grant received by their
                                                                   spouses under the collective agreement covering
                                                                   Luxembourg bank employees, and, so far as may be
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                   necessary, of the decisions of 15 May and 27 July 1997
                                                                   expressly rejecting their complaints, the Court of First
                                                                   Instance    (Second       Chamber),     composed   of:    A.
In Case T-207/97: Georges Berthu, Member of the                    Kalogeropoulos, President, C. W. Bellamy and J. Pirrung,
European Parliament, resident in Chelles (France),                 Judges; Registrar: H. Jung, made an order on 24 March
represented by Alexandre Varaut, of the Paris Bar, 9 Rue           1998, the operative part of which is as follows:
Alfred de Vigny, Paris, against Council of the European
Union (Agents: Jean-Paul JacqueÂ and Ignacio Díez Parra)
Ð application for the annulment of Council Regulation              1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
(EC) No 1103/97 of 17 June on certain provisions relating
to the introduction of the euro (OJ L 162, 19.6.1997, p. 1)        2. The parties shall bear their own costs.
Ð the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber),
composed of A. Kalogeropoulos, President, C. W. Bellamy            (1) OJ C 318, 18.10.1997.
and J. Pirrung, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order
on 12 March 1998, the operative part of which is as
follows:
1. The application          is  dismissed   as    manifestly
                                                                   Action brought on 10 March 1998 by Emesa Sugar (Free
    inadmissible.
                                                                       Zone) NV against the Council of the European Union
                                                                                (Case T-43/98)
2. The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.                                               (98/C 151/20)
(1) OJ C 318, 18.10.1997.                                                         (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                   An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                   brought before the Court of First Instance of the European


title: Case F-78/15: Action brought on 18 May 2015 — ZZ and Others v EIB

text:
               24.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/56

         Action brought on 18 May 2015 — ZZ and Others v EIB
   (Case F-78/15)
   (2015/C 279/72)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: ZZ and Others (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Investment Bank (EIB)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Firstly, annulment of the decisions in the pay statements for February 2015, fixing the annual salary adjustment as limited to 1,2 % for 2015 and annulment of the later statements and, in so far as necessary, the information notes which the defendant sent to the applicants on 6 and 10 February 2015. Secondly, an order that the EIB pay damages in respect of the material and non-material harm allegedly suffered.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the present action admissible and well founded, including the plea of illegality which it contains;

               —

               Consequently:

                           —

                           Annul the decision contained in the applicant’s pay statements for February 2015, which decision fixed the annual salary adjustment at 1,2 % for 2015 and, accordingly, annul the similar decisions contained in the later pay statements and, in so far as necessary, annul two information notes sent by the defendant to the applicants on 6 February 2015 and 10 February 2015;

               —

               Accordingly, order the defendant:

                           —

                           to pay to each defendant, as compensation for the material harm, (i) the balance of the salary corresponding to the application of the annual adjustment for 2015, namely an increase of 0,4 %, for the period of 1 January 2015 to 31 December 2015; (ii) the balance of the salary corresponding to the effects of application of the annual adjustment of 1,2 % for 2015 on the amount of the salaries which will be paid with effect from January 2016; (iii) default interest on the balances of the salaries due until payment in full of the sums due, the rate of the default interest to be applied must be calculated on the basis of the rate set by the European Central Bank for main refinancing operations, applicable during the relevant period, increased by three points and (iv) damages in respect of the loss of purchasing power; this material loss as a whole being estimated, provisionally, for each applicant, at EUR 30  000;

                           —

                           to pay to each applicant EUR 1  000 in respect of non-material harm;

               —

               Order the EIB to pay all the costs.


title: Case T-26/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  15 March 2006  — Verborgh v Commission (Officials — Appointment — Revision of the classification in grade — Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations)

text:
               6.5.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/18

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 March 2006 — Verborgh v Commission
   (Case T-26/04) (1)

   (Officials - Appointment - Revision of the classification in grade - Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations)
   (2006/C 108/31)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Jacques Verborgh (Aalter, Belgium) (represented by: N. Lhoëst and E. De Schietere de Lophem, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Joris and S. Pilette, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Application for, primarily, annulment of the Commission's decision of 20 December 2002 setting the applicant's final classification at Grade A7, step 3, and annulment, as far as is necessary, of the Commission's decision of 9 October 2003 rejecting the applicant's complaint and, as a subsidiary plea, the production of certain documents.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 71, 20.3.2004.


20150731059617102015/C 270/402812015TC27020150817EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20150526323322Case T-281/15: Action brought on 26 May 2015 — Pirelli Tyre v OHIM (Tyres for vehicle wheels, pneumatic)
 ---documentbreak--- C2702015EN3220120150526EN0040322332Action brought on 26 May 2015 — Pirelli Tyre v OHIM (Tyres for vehicle wheels, pneumatic)
   (Case T-281/15)2015/C 270/40Language of the case: Italian
      Parties

      Applicant: Pirelli Tyre SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: D. Caneva and G. Fucci, lawyers)

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

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Design at issue: Community design (Tyres for vehicle wheels, pneumatic) — Community design No 4 700-0001

      Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 February 2015 in Case R 1287/2014-3

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

            —

            annul the contested decision;

            —

            grant the application for restitutio in integrum made by Pirelli Tyre SpA in accordance with Article 67 of Regulation No 6/2002/EC on Community designs, by declaring that the payment of the renewal fee relating to the second five-year period by way of a withdrawal from current account No 000069 under the name of Bugnion SpA is lawful and that, therefore, the right to the design at issue is still valid;

            —

            order OHIM to pay the costs incurred by Pirelli Tyre SpA in the present proceedings.

      Plea in law

            —

            Infringement of Article 67 of Regulation No 6/2002/EC on Community designs.


title: Case T-411/03: Action brought on 9 December 2003 by Georges Herbillon against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 35/18                EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                         7.2.2004
Action brought on 17 December 2003 by Antonio Aresu                         Action brought on 9 December 2003 by Georges Herbil-
  against the Commission of the European Communities                        lon against the Commission of the European Communities
                         (Case T-407/03)                                                             (Case T-411/03)
                          (2004/C 35/29)                                                              (2004/C 35/30)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                                             (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                   An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                  ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities by Antonio Aresu, represented by                       European Communities on 9 December 2003 by Georges
Sergio Diana, avvocato.                                                     Herbillon, residing in Arlon (Belgium), represented by Nicolas
                                                                            Lhoëst, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
A)    annul the following two decisions:
                                                                            —     annul the decision of the appointing authority of
                                                                                23 December 2002 confirming the applicant’s initial
      —     the express decision of the appointing authority                      classification in Grade A 7;
            contained in Chantal Graykowski’s email of
            31 March 2003 stating that the the applicant’s
                                                                            —     order the defendant to pay all the costs.
            application in connection with the programme
            ‘Rotation 2003/Decentralisation (Phase 3)’ had been
            rejected;
      —     the implied decision of the appointing authority                Pleas in law and main arguments
            of 18 December 2003 rejecting the applicant’s
            complaint lodged on 18 June 2003 concerning that
            decision;
                                                                            The applicant was classified in grade A 7, step 3, upon taking
                                                                            up his duties with the Commission in September 1986. The
B)    order the Commission to pay the costs.                                applicant challenges the appointing authority’s decision, after
                                                                            reexamination of that classification following the judgment
                                                                            delivered by the Court of Justice in Case C-389/98 P Gevaert v
                                                                            Commission, not to reclassify him.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                            In support of his claims, the applicant alleges:
In this action the applicant challenges the rejection of his                —     breach of the duty to provided reasons, in so far as the
application for a transfer to an external delegation in connec-                   response of the defendant to his complaint merely
tion with the programme ‘Rotation 2003/Decentralisation                           consisted of a theoretical and altogether general account;
(Phase 3)’.
                                                                            —     the existence, in the present case, of a manifest error of
                                                                                assessment consisting in both a misinterpretation of the
In support of his claims, the applicant’s sole argument relates                   precedent set in Alexopoulou and in a stereotypical and
is that there was a complete failure to provide a statement of                    superficial analysis of his own circumstances, so far as
reasons, and a consequent infringement of the second para-                        concerned the criteria relating to exceptional qualifi-
graph of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations.                                     cations and the special needs of the service.


               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/1

         (2008/C 223/01)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 209, 15.8.2008

   Past publications

      OJ C 197, 2.8.2008

      OJ C 183, 19.7.2008

      OJ C 171, 5.7.2008

      OJ C 158, 21.6.2008

      OJ C 142, 7.6.2008

      OJ C 128, 24.5.2008

   These texts are available on:

               EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu


title: Case C-329/08: Order of the President of the Court of 6 March 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               16.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/29

         Order of the President of the Court of 6 March 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-329/08) (1)

   2009/C 113/57

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 272, 25.10.2008.


title: Case T-396/08: Judgment of the General Court of 8 July 2010 — Freistaat Sachsen and Land Sachsen-Anhalt v Commission (State aid — Training aid — Decision declaring the aid to be in part compatible and in part incompatible with the common market — Need for the aid — Positive external effects — Obligation to give reasons)

text:
               28.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 234/33

         Judgment of the General Court of 8 July 2010 — Freistaat Sachsen and Land Sachsen-Anhalt v Commission
   (Case T-396/08) (1)

   (State aid - Training aid - Decision declaring the aid to be in part compatible and in part incompatible with the common market - Need for the aid - Positive external effects - Obligation to give reasons)
   2010/C 234/58
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: Freistaat Sachsen (Germany) and Land Sachsen-Anhalt (Germany) (represented by: T. Müller-Ibold and T. Graf, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. França, K. Gross and B. Martenczuk, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for the partial annulment of Commission Decision 2008/878/EC of 2 July 2008 on State aid which Germany is planning to implement for DHL (OJ 2008 L 312, p. 31)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The General Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Freistaat Sachsen and Land Sachsen-Anhalt to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 327 of 20.12.2008.


title: Case C-273/08: Action brought on 25 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/36

         Action brought on 25 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-273/08)
   (2008/C 209/55)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Rozet and A. Alcover San Pedro, Agents)

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to communicate to the Commission of the European Communities its programmes for the reduction of national emissions of sulphur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX), volatile organic compounds (VOC) and ammonia (NH3), its national emission inventories of SO2, NOX, VOC and NH3, and its annual projections for SO2, NOX, VOC and NH3 for 2010, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(1), (2) and (3), Article 7(1) and (2) and Article 8(1) and (2) of Directive 2001/81/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2001 on national emission ceilings for certain atmospheric pollutants (1);

               —

               order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Commission submits that the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to communicate, within the time-limits prescribed in Directive 2001/81/EC, three types of document concerning the establishment of national emission ceilings for sulphur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX), volatile organic compounds (VOC) and ammonia (NH3).
   First, the defendant failed to fulfil its obligation, set out in Article 6(1), (2) and (3) of the directive, to draw up programmes for the progressive reduction of national emissions of the aforementioned pollutants.
   Secondly and thirdly, the defendant did not comply, in respect of the same pollutants, with the provisions of Article 7(1) and (2) concerning the preparation and annual updating of the national emission inventories and emission projections for 2010.
   Finally, it failed to fulfil its obligation to communicate these three types of document to the Commission within the time-limits prescribed in Article 8(1) and (2) of the directive.

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 309, p. 22.


title: Case T-561/08: Action brought on 15 December 2008 — Bactria and Gutknecht v Commission

text:
               7.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/37

         Action brought on 15 December 2008 — Bactria and Gutknecht v Commission
   (Case T-561/08)
   (2009/C 55/67)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicants: Bactria Industriehygiene-Service Verwaltungs GmbH (Kirchheimbolanden, Germany), Jürgen Gutknecht (Kirchheimbolanden, Germany) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem and C. Mereu, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare the application admissible and well founded;

               —

               order the European Community to pay the damages suffered by the applicants as a result of (i) the unlawful adoption of Article 6(2) of the First Review Regulation together with the Second Review Regulation and Commission Regulation 1451/2007; or, in the alternative (ii) the Commission's failure to take the necessary measures to ensure that the applicants' data protection rights under the Directive 98/8/EC were maintained and free-riding avoided during the review programme, estimated at a total amount of EUR 3 912 569, or other amount as further established by the applicants in the course of these proceedings or by the Court ex aequo et bono;

               —

               in the alternative, rule on interlocutory judgment that the European Community is obliged to make reparation for the loss suffered and order the parties to produce to the Court within a reasonable period from the date of the judgment figures as to the amount of the compensation agreed between the parties or, failing agreement, order the parties to produce to the Court within the same period their submissions with detailed figures in support;

               —

               order the European Community to pay the applicants' compensatory interest at the default rate from the date of the losses suffered;

               —

               order the European Community to pay default interest of 8 % or any other appropriate rate to be determined by the Court, calculated on the amount payable as from the date of the Court's judgment until actual payment; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay all costs of these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By means of their application, the applicants claim compensation, pursuant to Article 235 EC, for the damages allegedly suffered form the adoption of Article 6(2) of Commission Regulation 1896/2000 of 7 September 2000 (1) on the first phase of the programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (2) together with Commission Regulation 2032/2003 (3) and Commission Regulation 1451/2007 (4).
   In the alternative, the applicants claim compensation for the damages allegedly suffered from the failure of the Commission to ensure protection of the data protection rights granted to notifiers pursuant to Article 12 of Directive 98/8/EC. They further submit that the damage suffered by the applicants as a result of the Commission's unlawful conduct consists of a significant reduction in the value of the first applicant's business and the lost profit (lucrum cessans) which the first applicant would have made by selling the biocidal products at issue an the active substances contained in those biocidal products but for the conduct of the Community.
   In addition to the damage allegedly suffered by the second applicant as a shareholder of and therefore owner of the business of the first applicant, it is submitted that the second applicant has also suffered the loss of his livelihood. Finally, the applicants claim compensatory interest at the default rate from the date the losses claimed occurred.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1896/2000 of 7 September 2000 on the first phase of the programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on biocidal products (OJ 2000 L 228, p. 6).

      (2)  Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (OJ 1998 L 123, p. 1).

      (3)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2032/2003 of 4 November 2003 on the second phase of the 10-year work programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1896/2000 (OJ 2003 L 307, p. 1).

      (4)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007 of 4 December 2007 on the second phase of the 10-year work programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (OJ 2007 L 325, p. 3).


title: Judgment of the Court of 20 May 2003 in CaseC-469/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation): Ravil SARL v Bellon import SARL, Biraghi SpA (Protected designations of origin — Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 — Regulation (EEC) No 1107/96 — "Grana Padano" freshly grated — Specification — Convention between two Member States — Condition that the cheese is grated and packaged in the region of production — Articles 29 EC and 30 EC — Justification — Whether the condition may be relied on against third parties — Legal certainty— Publicity)

text:
C 171/4                  EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                               19.7.2003
J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur) and R. Schintgen                  in the proceedings pending before that court between Ravil
(Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward, A. La                 SARL og Bellon import SARL, Biraghi SpA, on the interpret-
Pergola, P. Jann, V. Skouris, F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von                 ation of Article 29 EC, the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodríguez
Bahr and J. N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate                 Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen
General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Regis-               and C. W. A. Timmermans (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gul-
trar, has given a judgment on 20 May 2003, in which it has                   mann (Rapporteur), D. A. O. Edward, P. Jann, V. Skouris,
ruled:                                                                       F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and J. N. Cunha Rodrigues,
                                                                             Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal
1.    Articles 6(1)(c) and 7(c) and (e) of Directive 95/46/EC of the         Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
      European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995              20 May 2003, in which it has ruled:
      on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of
      personal data and on the free movement of such data do not
      preclude national legislation such as that at issue in the main
      proceedings, provided that it is shown that the wide disclosure
      not merely of the amounts of the annual income above a certain
      threshold of persons employed by the bodies subject to control         1.    As regards the period prior to the entry into force of Commission
      by the Rechnungshof but also of the names of the recipients of               Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 of 12 June 1996 on the
      that income is necessary for and appropriate to the objective of             registration of geographical indications and designations of
      proper management of public funds pursued by the legislature,                origin under the procedure laid down in Article 17 of Council
      that being for the national courts to ascertain.                             Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92, Article 29 EC must be
                                                                                interpreted as not precluding a convention concluded between
2.    Articles 6(1)(c) and 7(c) and (e) of Directive 95/46 are directly            two Member States A and B, such as the Convention between
      applicable, in that they may be relied on by an individual before            the French Republic and the Italian Republic on the protection
      the national courts to oust the application of rules of national             of designations of origin, indications of provenance and names
      law which are contrary to those provisions.                                  of certain products, signed in Rome on 28 April 1964, from
                                                                                making applicable in Member State A national legislation of
                                                                                Member State B, such as that referred to by the national court,
( 1) OJ C 79 of 10.03.2001 and OJ C 173 of 16.06.2001.                             under which the designation of origin of a cheese, protected in
                                                                                Member State B, is reserved, for cheese marketed in grated
                                                                                form, to cheese grated and packaged in the region of production.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      2.    Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on
                                                                                the protection of geographical indications and designations of
                           of 20 May 2003                                          origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs, as amended by
                                                                                the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic
                                                                                of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden
in Case C-469/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                          and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European
the Cour de cassation): Ravil SARL v Bellon import SARL,                           Union is founded, must be interpreted as not precluding the use
                            Biraghi SpA ( 1)                                       of a protected designation of origin from being subject to the
                                                                                condition that operations such as the grating and packaging of
(Protected designations of origin — Regulation (EEC)                               the product take place in the region of production, where such a
No 2081/92 — Regulation (EEC) No 1107/96 — ‘Grana                                  condition is laid down in the specification.
Padano’ freshly grated — Specification — Convention
between two Member States — Condition that the cheese is
grated and packaged in the region of production —
Articles 29 EC and 30 EC — Justification — Whether the
condition may be relied on against third parties — Legal                     3.    Where the use of the protected designation of origin ‘Grana
                        certainty— Publicity)                                      Padano’ for cheese marketed in grated form is made subject to
                                                                                the condition that grating and packaging operations be carried
                                                                                out in the region of production, this constitutes a measure
                           (2003/C 171/04)
                                                                                having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction on exports
                                                                                within the meaning of Article 29 EC, but may be regarded as
                     (Language of the case: French)                                justified, and hence compatible with that provision.
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             4.    However, the condition in question may not be relied on against
                                                                                economic operators, as it was not brought to their knowledge
In Case C-469/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234                         by adequate publicity in Community legislation. Nevertheless,
EC by the Cour de cassation (France) for a preliminary ruling                      the principle of legal certainty does not preclude that condition
 ---pagebreak--- 19.7.2003                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                                C 171/5
      from being regarded by the national court as capable of being          of the Fourth Chamber, acting for the President of the Fifth
      relied on against operators who carried on the activity of grating     Chamber, D. A. O. Edward, P. Jann, S. von Bahr and A. Rosas,
      and packaging the product in the period prior to the entry into        Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal
      force of Regulation No 1107/96, should that court consider             Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
      that during that period the Decree of 4 November 1991 was              22 May 2003, in which it has ruled:
      applicable by virtue of the aforesaid Convention between the
      French Republic and the Italian Republic and capable of being          1.    A limited company established, owned and managed by a
      relied on against those concerned by virtue of the national rules            regional or local authority meets a need in the general interest,
      on publicity.                                                                within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 1(b)
                                                                                of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to
                                                                                the coordination of procedures for the award of public service
( 1) OJ C 469 of 10.2.2001.                                                        contracts, where it acquires services with a view to promoting
                                                                                the development of industrial or commercial activities on the
                                                                                territory of that regional or local authority. To determine
                                                                                whether that need has no industrial or commercial character,
                                                                                the national court must assess the circumstances which prevailed
                                                                                when that company was set up and the conditions in which it
                                                                                carries on its activity, taking account in particular of the fact
                                                                                that it does not aim primarily at making a profit, the fact that
                                                                                it does not bear the risks associated with the activity, and any
                                                                                public financing of the activity in question.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                             2.    The fact that the premises to be constructed are leased only to a
                                                                                single undertaking is not capable of calling into question the
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                         lessor’s status of a body governed by public law, where it is
                                                                                shown that the lessor meets a need in the general interest not
                                                                                having an industrial or commercial character.
                           of 22 May 2003
                                                                             (1 ) OJ C 95 of 24.3.2001.
in Case C-18/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Kilpailuneuvosto): Arkkitehtuuritoimisto Riitta
Korhonen Oy, Arkkitehtitoimisto Pentti Toivanen Oy,
Rakennuttajatoimisto Vilho Tervomaa v Varkauden Taito-
                              talo Oy (1)                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
(Directive 92/50/EEC — Public service contracts — Defi-
nition of ‘contracting authoritye’ — Body governed by public                                            of 22 May 2003
law — Company set up by a regional or local authority to
promote the development of industrial or commercial activi-                  in Case C-103/01: Commission of the European Communi-
              ties on the territory of that authority)                                    ties v Federal Republic of Germany (1)
                           (2003/C 171/05)                                   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
                                                                             89/686/EEC — Scope — Derogations — Personal protective
                                                                             equipment designed and manufactured specifically for use
                    (Language of the case: Finnish)                           by the armed forces or in the maintenance of law and order)
                                                                                (2003/C 171/06)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                                               (Language of the case: German)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-18/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the Kilpailuneuvosto (Finland) for a preliminary ruling in                In Case C-103/01, Commission of the European Communities
the proceedings pending before that court between Arkkitehtu-                (Agent: J. Shieferer) v Federal Republic of Germany (Agents:
uritoimisto Riitta Korhonen Oy, Arkkitehtitoimisto Pentti                    W.-D. Plessing, B. Muttelsee-Schön and H.-W. Rengeling)
Toivanen Oy, Rakennuttajatoimisto Vilho Tervomaa and Var-                    supported by French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues and
kauden Taitotalo Oy, on the interpretation of Article 1(b) of                D. Colas): Application for a declaration that, by making, by
Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the                  means of the legislation of certain Länder, personal protective
coordination of procedures for the award of public service                   equipment for firefighters subject to additional requirements,
contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1), the Court (Fifth Chamber),                  although it complies with the requirements of Council Direc-
composed of: C. W. A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), President                     tive 89/686/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the approximation


title: Case C-317/15: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 15 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — X v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Free movement of capital — Article 64 TFEU — Movement of capital to or from third countries involving the provision of financial services — Financial assets held in a Swiss bank account — Additional assessment for recovery — Recovery period — Extension of the recovery period in the case of assets held outside the Member State of residence)

text:
               10.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/6

         Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 15 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — X v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-317/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Free movement of capital - Article 64 TFEU - Movement of capital to or from third countries involving the provision of financial services - Financial assets held in a Swiss bank account - Additional assessment for recovery - Recovery period - Extension of the recovery period in the case of assets held outside the Member State of residence))
   (2017/C 112/09)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: X

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 64(1) TFEU must be interpreted as applying to national legislation which imposes a restriction on the movements of capital referred to in that provision, such as the extended recovery period at issue in the main proceedings, even where that restriction can also be applied to situations which have nothing to do with direct investment, establishment, the provision of financial services or the admission of securities to capital markets.

               2.

               The opening of a securities account by a resident of a Member State with a banking institution outside the European Union, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, comes within the concept of a movement of capital involving the provision of financial services, within the meaning of Article 64(1) TFEU.

               3.

               The possibility, provided for in Article 64(1) TFEU, for Member States to apply restrictions on capital movements involving the provision of financial services also applies to restrictions which, like the extended recovery period at issue in the main proceedings, are not related to either the provider of the services or the conditions and mechanisms of the provision of services.

      (1)  OJ C 311, 21.9.2015.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of  13 October 2005  in Case C-200/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof, Finanzamt Heidelberg v ISt internationale Sprach- und Studienreisen GmbH (Sixth VAT Directive — Special scheme for travel agents and tour operators — Article 26(1) — Scope — Package comprising travel to the host State and/or the stay in that State and language tuition — Principal service and ancillary service — Definition — Directive 90/314/EEC on package travel, package holidays and package tours)

text:
               26.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/6

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 13 October 2005
   in Case C-200/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof, Finanzamt Heidelberg v ISt internationale Sprach- und Studienreisen GmbH (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Special scheme for travel agents and tour operators - Article 26(1) - Scope - Package comprising travel to the host State and/or the stay in that State and language tuition - Principal service and ancillary service - Definition - Directive 90/314/EEC on package travel, package holidays and package tours)
   (2005/C 296/12)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-200/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany), made by decision of 18 March 2004, received at the Court on 5 May 2004, in the proceedings between Finanzamt Heidelberg and ISt internationale Sprach- und Studienreisen GmbH — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen, R. Silva de Lapuerta, P. Kūris and G. Arestis (Rapporteur), Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; M. Ferreira, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 13 October 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:
   Article 26 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, should be interpreted as meaning that it applies to a trader who offers services such as the ‘High School’ and ‘College’ programmes involving the organisation of language and study trips abroad and which, in consideration of the payment of an all-inclusive sum, provides in its own name to its customers a stay abroad of three to 10 months and buys in services from other taxable persons for that purpose.

      (1)  OJ C 190 of 24.07.2004.


title: Case C-54/16: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Ordinario di Venezia — Italy) — Vinyls Italia SpA, in liquidation v Mediterranea di Navigazione SpA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Insolvency proceedings — Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 — Articles 4 and 13 — Acts detrimental to all the creditors — Conditions in which the act in question may be challenged — Act subject to the law of a Member State other than the State of the opening of proceedings — Act which is not open to challenge on the basis of that law — Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 — Article 3(3) — Law chosen by the parties — Location of all the elements of the situation concerned in the State of the opening of proceedings — Effect)

text:
               31.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/8

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Ordinario di Venezia — Italy) — Vinyls Italia SpA, in liquidation v Mediterranea di Navigazione SpA
   (Case C-54/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Insolvency proceedings - Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 - Articles 4 and 13 - Acts detrimental to all the creditors - Conditions in which the act in question may be challenged - Act subject to the law of a Member State other than the State of the opening of proceedings - Act which is not open to challenge on the basis of that law - Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 - Article 3(3) - Law chosen by the parties - Location of all the elements of the situation concerned in the State of the opening of proceedings - Effect))
   (2017/C 249/11)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Ordinario di Venezia

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Vinyls Italia SpA, in liquidation

      Defendant: Mediterranea di Navigazione SpA

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 13 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings must be interpreted to the effect that the form and the time-limit in which a person benefiting from an act that is detrimental to all the creditors must raise an objection under that article, in order to challenge an action to have that act set aside in accordance with the lex fori concursus, and the question whether that article may also be applied by the competent court of its own motion, if necessary, after the time-limit allowed to the party concerned has expired, fall within the procedural law of the Member State on whose territory the dispute is pending. That law must not, however, be less favourable than the law governing similar domestic situations (principle of equivalence) and must not make it excessively difficult or impossible in practice to exercise the rights conferred by EU law (principle of effectiveness), that being a matter for the referring court to determine;

               2.

               Article 13 of Regulation No 1346/2000 must be interpreted to the effect that the party bearing the burden of proof must show that, where the lex causae makes it possible to challenge an act regarded as being detrimental, the conditions to be met in order for that challenge to be upheld, which differ from those of the lex fori concursus, have not actually been fulfilled;

               3.

               Article 13 of Regulation No 1346/2000 may be validly relied upon where the parties to a contract, who have their head offices in a single Member State on whose territory all the other elements relevant to the situation in question are located, have designated the law of another Member State as the law applicable to that contract, provided that those parties did not choose that law for abusive or fraudulent ends, that being a matter for the referring court to determine.

      (1)  OJ C 156, 2.5.2016.


title: Case F-6/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 23 March 2015 — Borghans v Commission (Civil service — Remuneration — Survivor’s pension — First paragraph of Article 27 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Divorced spouse of a deceased member of the permanent staff — Existence of alimony on the date of death of the member of the permanent staff — Article 42 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Time-limits for applying for payment of pension entitlements)

text:
               11.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/41

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 23 March 2015 — Borghans v Commission
   (Case F-6/14) (1)

   ((Civil service - Remuneration - Survivor’s pension - First paragraph of Article 27 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Divorced spouse of a deceased member of the permanent staff - Existence of alimony on the date of death of the member of the permanent staff - Article 42 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Time-limits for applying for payment of pension entitlements))
   (2015/C 155/60)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Julia Borghans (Auderghem, Belgium) (represented by: F. Van der Schueren and C. Lefèvre, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and A.-C. Simon, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision refusing to grant the applicant a survivor’s pension following the death of her ex-spouse.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1)

               Annuls the decision of 3 June 2013 by which the European Commission refused to grant a survivor’s pension to Mrs Borghans;

               2)

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mrs Borghans.

      (1)  OJ C 85, 22/3/2014, p. 28.


title: Case C-394/14: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim — Germany) — Sandy Siewert and Others v Condor Flugdienst GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rules of Procedure — Article 99 — Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Long delay to a flight — Passengers’ right to compensation — Conditions exempting an air carrier from its obligation to pay compensation — Notion of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ — Aircraft damaged by a set of mobile boarding stairs in the course of a preceding flight)

text:
               19.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/15

      Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim — Germany) — Sandy Siewert and Others v Condor Flugdienst GmbH
      (Case C-394/14) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Rules of Procedure - Article 99 - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Long delay to a flight - Passengers’ right to compensation - Conditions exempting an air carrier from its obligation to pay compensation - Notion of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ - Aircraft damaged by a set of mobile boarding stairs in the course of a preceding flight)
      (2015/C 016/23)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Sandy Siewert, Emma Siewert, Nele Siewert

         Defendant: Condor Flugdienst GmbH

         Operative part of the order

      Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, must be interpreted as meaning that a situation where, as in in the case before the referring court, an airport’s set of mobile boarding stairs collides with an aircraft cannot be categorised as ‘extraordinary circumstances’ exempting the air carrier from its obligation to pay the passengers compensation in the event of a long delay to a flight operated by that aircraft.

         (1)  OJ C 372, 20.10.2014.


20150731040616982015/C 270/412822015TC27020150817EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20150526333311Case T-282/15: Action brought on 26 May 2015 — Pirelli Tyre v OHIM (Tyre treads)
 ---documentbreak--- C2702015EN3310120150526EN0041331331Action brought on 26 May 2015 — Pirelli Tyre v OHIM (Tyre treads)
   (Case T-282/15)2015/C 270/41Language of the case: Italian
      Parties

      Applicant: Pirelli Tyre SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: D. Caneva and G. Fucci, lawyers)

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

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Design at issue: Community design (Tyre treads) — Community design No 4 700-0002

      Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 February 2015 in Case R 1288/2014-3

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

            —

            annul the contested decision;

            —

            grant the application for restitutio in integrum made by Pirelli Tyre SpA in accordance with Article 67 of Regulation No 6/2002/EC on Community designs, by declaring that the payment of the renewal fee relating to the second five-year period by way of a withdrawal from current account No 000069 under the name of Bugnion SpA is lawful and that, therefore, the right to the design at issue is still valid;

            —

            order OHIM to pay the costs incurred by Pirelli Tyre SpA in the present proceedings.

      Plea in law

            —

            Infringement of Article 67 of Regulation No 6/2002/EC on Community designs.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 6 May 2003 in Case T-45/02: DOW AgroSciences BV and DOW AgroSciences Ltd v European Parliament and Council of the European Union (Decision No 2455/2001/EC — Action for annulment — Inadmissibility)

text:
C 184/34               EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                         2.8.2003
4.    orders the Commission to pay default interest to the applicant        1.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
      at the rate set by the European Central Bank for capital
      refinancing operations in force during the various phases of the
      period concerned, increased by two percentage points per annum,       2.    The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.
      on the arrears of pension from 1 January 2001 to 31 March
      2001; that interest must be calculated from the various dates at      (1) OJ C 275 29.9.2001.
      which each payment under the pension scheme should have been
      made, up to the date on which the payment was effected;
5.    in Case T-124/01, orders the parties to bear their own costs;
6.    in Case T-320/01, orders the Commission to bear its own costs
      and pay half the applicant's costs.
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
7.    In Case T-320/01, orders the applicant to bear half his own
      costs.
                                                                                of 6 May 2003
(1) OJ C 56 of 2.3.02.
                                                                            in Case T-45/02: DOW AgroSciences BV and DOW Agro-
                                                                            Sciences Ltd v European Parliament and Council of the
                                                                                European Union (1)
                                                                            (Decision No 2455/2001/EC — Action for annulment —
                                                                                Inadmissibility)
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                                           (2003/C 184/77)
                          of 30 April 2003                                                      (Language of the case: English)
in Case T-167/01: Schmitz-Gotha Fahrzeugwerke GmbH v
         Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                            In Case T-45/02, DOW AgroSciences BV, established in
                                                                            Rotterdam (Netherlands), DOW AgroSciences Ltd, established
(Action for annulment — Locus standi — Commission                           in Hitchin (United Kingdom), represented by K. Van Maldegem
decision ordering recovery of State aid — Action brought                    and C. Mereu, lawyers, supported by European Crop Protection
by an undertaking buying up assets of a company required                    Association (ECPA), having its registered office in Brussels
                  to repay aid — Inadmissibility)                           (Belgium), represented by D. Waelbroeck and D. Brinckman,
                                                                            lawyers, v European Parliament (Agents: C. Pennera and
                                                                            M. Moore) and Council of the European Union (Agents:
                           (2003/C 184/76)                                  M. Sims-Robertson and B. Hoff-Nielsen), supported by
                                                                            Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Valero
                                                                            Jordana and K. Fitch), APPLICATION for partial annulment of
                    (Language of the case: German)                          Decision No 2455/2001/EC of the European Parliament and of
                                                                            the Council of 20 November 2001 establishing the list of
                                                                            priority substances in the field of water policy and amending
                                                                            Directive 2000/60/EC (OJ 2001 L 331, p. 1), the President of
In Case T-167/01: Schmitz-Gotha Fahrzeugwerke GmbH, estab-                  the Court of First Instance has made an order on 6 May 2003,
lished in Gotha (Germany), represented by M. Matzat, lawyer,                the operative part of which is as follows:
against Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
V. Kreuschitz and V. Di Buccis) — application for annulment
of Commission Decision 2001/673/EC of 28 March 2001 on                      1.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
State aid implemented by Germany for EFBE Verwaltungs
GmbH & Co. Management KG (now Lintra Beteiligungsholding
GmbH, together with Zeitzer Maschinen, Anlagen Geräte                       2.    The applicants shall bear their own costs and pay the costs
GmbH; LandTechnik Schlüter GmbH; ILKA MAFA Kältetechnik                           incurred by the Parliament and the Council.
GmbH; SKL Motoren- und Systembautechnik GmbH; SKL
Spezialapparatebau GmbH; Magdeburger Eisengießerei GmbH;                    3.    The Commission and the European Crop Protection Association
Saxonia Edelmetalle GmbH and Gothaer Fahrzeugwerk GmbH)                           shall bear their own costs.
(OJ 2001 L 236, p. 3) — the Court of First Instance (Fourth
Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of V. Tiili, Presi-
dent of the Chamber, J. Pirrung, P. Mengozzi, A.W.H. Meij and               (1) OJ C 144 of 15.6.2002.
M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
30 April 2003, the operative part of which is as follows:


title: Case C-575/08: Action brought on 22 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/39

         Action brought on 22 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-575/08)
   (2009/C 44/66)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Peere and P. Dejmek, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that in failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary to comply with Directive 2005/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on cross-border mergers of limited liability companies (1) the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The time-limit for the transposition of Directive 2005/56/EC expired on 14 December 2007. At the date of filing of the present action, the defendant had not adopted all the necessary implementing measures or, in any event, had not yet communicated those measures to the Commission.

      (1)  OJ 2005 L 310, p. 1.