title: Case C-654/11 P: Appeal brought on 20 December 2011 by Transcatab SpA, in liquidation, against the judgment delivered on 5 October 2011 in Case T-39/06 Transcatab v Commission

text:
               18.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 49/19

         Appeal brought on 20 December 2011 by Transcatab SpA, in liquidation, against the judgment delivered on 5 October 2011 in Case T-39/06 Transcatab v Commission
   (Case C-654/11 P)
   2012/C 49/33
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Transcatab SpA, in liquidation (represented by: C. Osti, A. Prastaro and G. Mastrantonio, avvocati)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment in Case T-39/06 Transcatab v Commission (‘the judgment under appeal’), in which the General Court (Third Chamber) found that Standard Commercial Corp (SCC) (hence Alliance One) had to be treated as jointly liable for the infringements committed by Transcatab;

               —

               reduce in consequence the fine imposed on Transcatab, annulling in part Article 2(c) of Commission Decision C(2005) 4012 final relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) EC (Case COMP/C.38.281/B.2 — Raw tobacco — Italy) (‘the Decision’), finding that the fine must be calculated by reference to Transcatab’s turnover — which, for the financial year ending in March 2005, amounted to EUR 32 338 000 — in accordance with the provision made under Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17/62 and Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003;

               —

               annul, in consequence, the Decision in so far as it applies to the basic amount of Transcatab’s fine a multiplier of 1.25 %;

               —

               set aside the judgment under appeal — in so far as it rejects Transcatab’s complaints in relation to (i) failure to reduce the fine imposed to reflect the fact that there had been no actual impact on the market; (ii) the diminishing intensity of the infringement during the period from 1999 to 2002; and (iii) the attenuating factor of ‘reasonable doubt’, applied instead in the analogous Spanish case — and, in consequence, reduce the fine;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs in their entirety.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   It is claimed, in the first place, that the judgment under appeal is in breach of Article 296 TFEU, Articles 48 and 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and, in any event, of the principles which govern the burden of proof and Transcatab’s rights of defence. In the course of the proceedings at first instance, arguments and evidence were put forward to overturn the presumption that SCC had exerted decisive influence over Transcatab’s conduct. In so far as those arguments and that evidence were important or, at any rate, not insignificant in the light of the recent case-law of the Court of Justice, they warranted at least a specific appraisal and, in the event of being rejected, that adequate reasons be stated for that rejection. Transcatab maintains that the General Court neither undertook a specific appraisal nor provided an adequate statement of reasons. In any event, Transcatab claims that, in finding that the use of new evidence in the Decision was permissible, the judgment under appeal acted in breach of the principles governing the burden of proof and, in any event, it infringed Transcatab’s rights of defence.
   In the second place, Transcatab claims that, in not upholding the complaints relating to the fact that the infringement had not had any actual impact on the market and to the diminishing intensity of the infringement during the period from 1999 to 2002, the General Court erred in distorting the facts and, in any event, acted in breach of: the general principles governing the interpretation of administrative acts of the European institutions; its duty to state reasons; the rules governing the burden of proof; Transcatab’s rights of defence; and the principle requiring correspondence between the ruling and the application.
   In the third place, Transcatab claims that the judgment under appeal is flawed by error of law and by the failure to state reasons, or by reasoning which is illogical, in so far as the General Court rejected Transcatab’s complaint alleging breach of the principle of equal treatment, in so far as it failed to take account of the attenuating circumstance consisting in a ‘reasonable doubt’ whereas, in the analogous Spanish case, this was treated as an attenuating circumstance.


title: Case C-315/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Supreme Court, Hungary) lodged on 2 June 2016 — József Lingurár v Miniszterelnökséget vezető miniszter

text:
               16.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/21

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Supreme Court, Hungary) lodged on 2 June 2016 — József Lingurár v Miniszterelnökséget vezető miniszter
   (Case C-315/16)
   (2016/C 296/28)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Kúria

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: József Lingurár

      Defendant: Miniszterelnökséget vezető miniszter

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 42(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 (1) (‘Regulation No 1698/2005’) — also taking into account Article 46 — to be interpreted as not wholly precluding individuals from aid for the sustainable use of forest land where the land is also partly State owned?

               2.

               If aid is not wholly precluded, is Article 46 of Regulation No 1698/2005 to be interpreted as meaning that, in relation to the land concerned — which is partly State owned — the private forester or private owner is entitled to aid in proportion to his share of ownership?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2005 L 277, p. 1)


title: ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 12 May 1995 in Cases T-79/95 R and T-80/95 R, Société Nationale des Chemins de Fer Français and British Railways Board v. Commission of the European Communities

text:
No C 189/16         HEN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   22 . 7. 95
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                          of 8 June 1995                                                       of 11 May 1995
in Case T-583/93 : P v. Commission of the European                    in Case T-5 69/93 ; Andrew Macrae Moat v. Commission of
                         Communities i 1 )                                            the European Communities C )
(Officials — Decision compulsorily reassigning the                                             (Inadmissibility)
applicant to a post entailing, in particular, loss of the                                        ( 95/C 189/34
allowance provided for by Article 56a of the Staff
  Regulations — Duty to provide a statement of reasons)                              (Language of the case: English)
                           ( 95/C 189/33 )
                                                                      In Case T-569/93 , Andrew Macrae Moat, official of the
                                                                      Commission of the European Communities, represented by
                                                                      Luc Govaert, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service
                (Language of the case: French)                        in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Lucy Dupong, 14a Rue
                                                                      des Bains v. Commission of the European Communities
                                                                      ( Agent: Thomas F. Cusak ) — application for the annulment
In Case T-583/93 : P, an official of the Commission, residing         of various appointments and promotions which occurred
in Barasso ( Italy ), represented by Eric Boigelot, of the            before 1991 and for compensation for the harm allegedly
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at            suffered by the applicant — the Court of First Instance
the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim v.            ( Fourth Chamber ), composed of: K. Lenaerts, President, R.
Commission of the European Communities (Agents : Ana                  Schintgen and R. Garci'a-Valdecasas, Judges; Registrar: H.
Maria Alves Vieira and Alberto Dal Ferro ) — application              Jung; made an order on 11 May 1995 the operative part of
                                                                      which is as follows :
for the annulment of a decision compulsorily reassigning the
applicant to a post and for compensation for the financial
loss which that decision would have caused — the Court of             1 , the application is dismissed as inadmissible;
First Instance ( Second Chamber), composed of B.
Vesterdorf, President, and D. P. M. Barrington and A.                 2 , the parties are to bear their own costs.
Saggio, Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 8 June 1995 , in which             (') OJ No C 18 , 21 . 1 . 1994 .
it:
1 , annuls the decision contained in the memorandum sent
     to the applicant on 22 February 1 993 by Mr A;                                 ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
                                                                               OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 12 May 1995
                                                                      in Cases T-79/95 R and T-80/95 R, Société Nationale des
2 , orders the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum
                                                                      Chemins de Fer Français and British Railways Board v.
     of Lit 2 000 000 by way of damages for the loss of the
                                                                               Commission of the European Communities
     right to use a free transport facility;
                                                                                ( 95/C 189/35 )
                                                                              (Languages of the case: French and English)
3 , orders the Commission to pay to the applicant the sums
     which he would have received as shiftwork allowances             In Cases T-79/95 R and T-80/95 R, Société Nationale des
    from 1 March 1993 until the adoption of a decision                Chemins de Fer Français, whose registered office is in Paris,
     regularizing his position, together with default interest        represented by Barbara Rapp-Jung and Nathalie Flandin, of
     thereon at the annual rate of 8 % from 1 8 May 1 993 . In        the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
     the event that the parties are unable to agree the amount        at the Chambers of Victor Elvinger, 31 Rue d'Eich, and
     of that loss within three months, they are to send to the        British Railways Board, whose registered office is in
     Court the figures they propose;                                  London, represented by Thomas Sharpe QC of the Bar of
                                                                      England and Wales, instructed by Alexandre Nourry,
                                                                      Solicitor, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                      Chambers of Jean Hoss, 15 Côte d'Eich v. Commission of
4 , orders the Commission to pay its own costs.                       the European Communities (Agents : Francisco Gonzalez
                                                                      Diaz and Géraud de Bergues in Case T-79/95 R and Carmel
                                                                      O'Reilly, Francisco Gonzalez Diaz and Géraud de Bergues
(') OJ No C 43 , 12 . 2 . 1994 .                                      in Case T-80/95 R ) — applications for the suspension of
                                                                      operation of Article 2A of Commission Decision 94/894/EC
                                                                      of 13 December 1994 relating to a proceeding under
                                                                      Article 85 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA
                                                                      Agreement ( IV/32.490 — Eurotunnel ) i 1 ) in so far as it
                                                                      attaches certain conditions to the exemption provided for in
 ---pagebreak---  22 . 7. 95            EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 189/17
Article 1 of the Decision — the President of the Court of                On 23 November 1994, after a protracted procedure, the
First Instance made an order on 12 May 1995 the operative                applicant, pursuant to Article 175 of the EC Treaty, called
part of which is as follows :                                            on the Commission to act, and to adopt a definitive position
                                                                         on the complaint as far as Article 85 was concerned . On
                                                                         15 February 1 995 , not having received any decision from
 1 , the applications for interim measures are dismissed;                the Commission, the applicant brought before the Court of
                                                                         First Instance an action pursuant to Article 175 of the Treaty
2,    the costs are reserved.                                            against the Commission for failure to act ( Case T-28/95 ).
                                                                         On 17 February 1 995 , the Commission adopted Decision
                                                                         SG(95 ) D/1790 rejecting, as regards Article 85 of the EC
 0 ) OJ No L 354 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .                                      Treaty, the complaint submitted by the applicant (the
                                                                         contested decision ).
                                                                         The applicant submits that the contested Decision must be
                                                                         annulled for the following reasons :
Action brought on 28 April 1995 by International Express
Carriers Conference (IECC ) against the Commission of the                — infringement of Article 85 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty, in that
                    European Communities                                     the Commission exceeded its discretion, committing
                                                                             an error of law in not condemning a blatantly
                        ( Case T-110/95 )                                    anti-competitive agreement,
                          ( 95/C 189/36 )
                                                                         — infringement of Article 4 ( 1 ) of Regulation No 17/62 of
                (Language of the case: English)                              Article 85 ( 3 ) of the EC Treaty, in that the Commission
                                                                             granted a de facto exemption from the competition rules
An action against the Commission of the European                             even though it failed to comply with the conditions
Communities was brought before the Court of First                            relating to form and to substance set out in those
Instance of the European Communities on 28 April 1995 by                     provisions,
International Express Carriers Conference ( IECC ),
represented by Eric Morgan de Rivery and Jacques Derene,                 — breach of certain rules of law relating to the application
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers                    of the EC Treaty, in that the Commission committed
of Alex Schmitt, Bonn & Schmitt, 62 Avenue Guillaume,                        errors of law and manifest errors of appraisal of the facts
L-1650 Luxembourg.                                                           of the case in implementing the legal principles
                                                                             expounded by the Court of First Instance, inasmuch as,
The applicant claims that the Court should :                                 in the circumstances of this case, the Commission was
                                                                             not entitled to rely upon the Community interest in
— annul Commission Decision SG(95 ) D/1790 of                                order to reject the complaint, or, if it is entitled to do so,
     17 February 1995 ( Case No EV/32.791 — Remail ),                        it exercised that right incorrectly,
— order such further or other relief as the Court considers             — misuse of powers, in that the Commission's main
     appropriate in order for the Commission to comply with                  purpose in rejecting the complaint was in fact to attain
     Article 176 of the EC Treaty,                                           political objectives,
— order the Commission to pay the costs .
                                                                        — infringement of Article 190 of the EC Treaty, in that the
                                                                             Commission failed in its decision to give adequate
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                          reasons as to the alleged lack of Community interest in
                                                                             the adoption of a decision imposing a prohibition and as
The applicant, a professional organization composed of                       to the proposition that the positive effects of the Reims
certain important private express companies, filed with the                  agreement would be hampered by such a decision,
Commission, on 13 July 1988 , a complaint under
Article 3 ( 2 ) of Regulation No 17/62 concerning the
infringement ( i ) of Article 85 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty by certain      — breach of certain general principles of Community law,
European public postal operators and ( ii ) of Article 86 of the             in that, in adopting the decision, the Commission
Treaty by two post offices which relied upon a market                        violated the principles of legal certainty and of the
allocation    scheme     set   out     in  the  Universal   Postal           protection of legitimate expectations, the principle of
Convention. The conduct in question of the post offices                      non-discrimination, the principle of proportionality and
named in the complaint was designed to suppress or restrain                  the principle of sound administration.
'remail' competition, a practice whereby a mailer prepares
international mail in one country but posts the mail not with
the post office of that country but with a post office located
in another country.


title: Case T-28/14: Action brought on 14 January 2014 — José Manuel Baena Grupo v OHIM — Neuman and Galdeano del Sel (Representation of a seated figure)

text:
               15.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/14

         Action brought on 14 January 2014 — José Manuel Baena Grupo v OHIM — Neuman and Galdeano del Sel (Representation of a seated figure)
   (Case T-28/14)
   2014/C 78/28
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: José Manuel Baena Grupo, SA (Santa Perpètua de Mogoda, Spain) (represented by: A. Canela Giménez, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Herbert Neuman and Andoni Galdeano del Sel (Tarifa, Spain)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul OHIM’s decision;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Registered Community design No 426 895-002 for ‘T-shirts (Ornamentation for); Caps (Ornamentation for); Stickers (Ornamentation for); Printed matter, including advertising materials (Ornamentation for)’.

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Applicant

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Herbert Neuman and Andoni Galdeano del Sel

      Mark or design of the applicant for the declaration of invalidity: Community figurative mark No 1 312 651, for goods in Classes 25, 28, and 32 of the Nice Classification.

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Application upheld and design declared invalid

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed in part

      Pleas in law: Incorrect interpretation of Regulation No 6/2002


title: Case C-405/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Bruchsal (Germany) lodged on 10 August 2010 — Criminal proceedings against QB (*)

text:
                  23.10.2010

                  EN

                  Official Journal of the European Union

                  C 288/22

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Bruchsal (Germany) lodged on 10 August 2010 — Criminal proceedings against  QB (*1)

         (Case C-405/10)
         ()
         (2010/C 288/38)
         Language of the case: German

            Referring court

         Amtsgericht Bruchsal

            Party to the main proceedings

          QB (*1)

            Question referred

         Are the rules in Article 37 of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of 14 June 2006 (1), in conjunction with Regulation (EC) No 1418/2007 of 29 November 2007 (2) to be interpreted as meaning that it is prohibited to ship to Lebanon waste which falls within waste category B 1120 of Annex IX to the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal of 22 March 1989?

            (*1)  Information erased or replaced within the framework of protection of personal data and/or confidentiality.

            (1)  OJ 2006 L 190, p. 1

            (2)  OJ 2007 L 316, p. 6


title: Case T-348/12: Action brought on 31 July 2012 — Globosat Programadora v OHIM — Sport TV Portugal (SPORT TV INTERNACIONAL)

text:
               13.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/11

         Action brought on 31 July 2012 — Globosat Programadora v OHIM — Sport TV Portugal (SPORT TV INTERNACIONAL)
   (Case T-348/12)
   2012/C 311/14
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Globosat Programadora Ltda (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil) (represented by: S. Micallef, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sport TV Portugal, SA (Lisbon, Portugal)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 23 May 2012 in case R 2079/2010-4;

               —

               Annul all costs orders made against the applicant by the Office, and order the later to bear the costs of the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘SPORT TV INTERNACIONAL’, for services in classes 35, 38 and 41 — Community trade mark application No 6915094

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Portuguese trade mark registration No 329507 of the figurative mark ‘SPORTV’, for services in classes 38 and 41

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 42(2) and (3) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 and Infringement of Rule 22(3) of Commission Regulation No 2868/95.


title: Case C-391/06: Action brought on 20 September 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/28

         Action brought on 20 September 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland
   (Case C-391/06)
   (2006/C 294/48)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Lawunmi, U. Wölker, Agents)

      Defendant: Ireland
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/4/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council, or in any event by failing to communicate them to the Commission, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive;

               —

               order Ireland to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period within which the directive had to be transposed expired on 14 February 2005.

      (1)  OJ L 94, P.49


title: Case T-1/12: Judgment of the General Court of 15 January 2015  — France v Commission (State aid — Aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty — Restructuring aid planned by the French authorities for SeaFrance SA — Capital increase and loans granted by the SNCF to SeaFrance — Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the internal market — Concept of State aid — Criterion of private investor — Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty)

text:
               23.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/29

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 January 2015 — France v Commission
   (Case T-1/12) (1)

   ((State aid - Aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty - Restructuring aid planned by the French authorities for SeaFrance SA - Capital increase and loans granted by the SNCF to SeaFrance - Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the internal market - Concept of State aid - Criterion of private investor - Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty))
   (2015/C 065/40)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: French Republic (represented by: initially E. Belliard, G. de Bergues and J. Gstalter, then G. de Bergues, D. Colas and J. Bousin, Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, B. Stromsky and T. Maxian Rusche, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2012/397/EU of 24 October 2011 on State aid SA 32600 (2011/C) — France — Restructuring aid to SeaFrance SA granted by the SNCF (OJ 2012, L 195, p. 1).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 80, 17.3.2012.


title: Case C-519/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bari (Italy) lodged on 27 October 2010 — Giovanni Colapietro v Ispettorato Centrale Repressioni Frodi

text:
               15.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/21

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bari (Italy) lodged on 27 October 2010 — Giovanni Colapietro v Ispettorato Centrale Repressioni Frodi
   (Case C-519/10)
   ()
   2011/C 13/40
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Bari

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Giovanni Colapietro

      Defendant: Ispettorato Centrale Repressioni Frodi

      Questions referred

               1.

               What is the scope of Regulation (EEC) No 822/87, (1) that is to say, its spatial and temporal application, and the purpose thereof as regards penalties, with respect to the 1993/94 wine year, the period to which the case at issue relates?

               2.

               Is it true that Article 39 of Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 was implemented, in respect of the 1993/94 wine year, by Regulation (EEC) No 343/94 (2) of 15 February 1994 and replaced with that regulation?

               3.

               Is the application of the fine of LIT 390 250 000 (now EUR 201 547,30 — two hundred and one thousand five hundred and forty seven point 30 euros) for failure to deliver for compulsory distillation — in respect of the 1993/94 wine year — 7 084,87 hl of table wine, that volume having been calculated by applying the compulsory distillation quota to the lees produced (15 155 hl) (the yield being 126 hl/ha and the compulsory distillation quota being 51.5 %, in accordance with Regulation (EEC) No 610/94) (3) disproportionate in effect to the offences and in breach of the principle of fair punishment, which has been set out many times by the Court of Justice?

      (1)  OJ 1987 L 84, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 1987 L 44, p. 9.

      (3)  OJ 1994 L 77, p. 12.


title: Case F-19/10: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 28 March 2012 — Marsili v Commission (Civil service — Open competition — Non-inclusion on the reserve list — Evaluation of the oral test — Composition of the selection board)

text:
               12.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/23

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 28 March 2012 — Marsili v Commission
   (Case F-19/10) (1)

   (Civil service - Open competition - Non-inclusion on the reserve list - Evaluation of the oral test - Composition of the selection board)
   2012/C 138/43
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Letizia Marsili (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, C. Mereu and M. Velardo, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Eggers and J. Baquero Cruz, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision of the Commission not to include the applicant on the reserve list for competition EPSO/AST/51/08, and for damages.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Ms Marsili to pay all the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 161, 19.6.2010, p. 57.


title: Case C-225/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (Royaume-Uni) (United Kingdom) made on 13 May 2011 — Her Majesty's Commissioners of Revenue and Customs v Able UK Ltd

text:
               16.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/16

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (Royaume-Uni) (United Kingdom) made on 13 May 2011 — Her Majesty's Commissioners of Revenue and Customs v Able UK Ltd
   (Case C-225/11)
   2011/C 211/31
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (Royaume-Uni)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Her Majesty's Commissioners of Revenue and Customs

      Defendant: Able UK Ltd

      Question referred

               1.

               Is Article 151(1)(c) of the Principal VAT Directive (1) to be interpreted as exempting a supply in the UK of services of dismantling obsolete US Navy ships for the US Department of Transportation Maritime Administration in either or both of the following circumstances:

                           (a)

                           where that supply was not made to a part of the armed forces of a NATO member taking part in the common defence effort or to civilian staff accompanying them;

                           (b)

                           where that supply was not made to a part of the armed forces of a NATO member stationed in or visiting the United Kingdom or to civilian staff accompanying such forces?

      (1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC. OJ L 347, p. 1


title: Case C-255/15: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Steef Mennens v Emirates Direktion für Deutschland (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Article 2(f) and Article 10(2) — Partial reimbursement of the ticket price where a passenger is downgraded on a flight — Concepts of ‘ticket’ and ‘price of the ticket’ — Calculation of the reimbursement owed to the passenger)

text:
               29.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 314/5

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Steef Mennens v Emirates Direktion für Deutschland
   (Case C-255/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Article 2(f) and Article 10(2) - Partial reimbursement of the ticket price where a passenger is downgraded on a flight - Concepts of ‘ticket’ and ‘price of the ticket’ - Calculation of the reimbursement owed to the passenger))
   (2016/C 314/07)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Düsseldorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Steef Mennens

      Defendant: Emirates Direktion für Deutschland

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 10(2), read in conjunction with Article 2(f), 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 where a passenger is downgraded on a flight, the price to be taken into account in determining the reimbursement for the passenger affected is the price of the flight on which he was downgraded unless that price is not indicated on the ticket entitling him to transport on that flight, in which case it must be based on the part of the price of the ticket corresponding to the quotient resulting from the distance of that flight and the total distance which the passenger is entitled to travel.

               2.

               Article 10(2) of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that, the price of the ticket to be taken into consideration for the purposes of determining the reimbursement owed to that passenger, where he is downgraded on a flight, is solely the price of the flight itself, to the exclusion of taxes and charges indicated on that ticket, as long as neither the requirement to pay those taxes and charges nor their amount depends on the class for which that ticket has been purchased.

      (1)  OJ C 394, 7.9.2015.


title: Case C-374/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsgericht Sigmaringen by order of that Court of 31 July 2003 in the administrative law case of Gaye Gürol against Landesamt für Ausbildungsförderung Nordrhein-Westfalen

text:
13.12.2003              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 304/9
No 2307/97 of 18 November 1997 (OJ 1997 L 325,                              for a preliminary ruling in the administrative law case of
p. 1), and of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1808/2001 of                    Gaye Gürol against Landesamt für Ausbildungsförderung
30 August 2001 laying down detailed rules concerning the                    Nordrhein-Westfalen on the following questions:
implementation of Regulation No 338/97 (OJ 2001 L 250,
p. 1), the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet,            1.    Does the first sentence of Article 9 of Decision No 1/80
President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, F. Macken, N. Colneric                      of the EEC/Turkey Association Council have direct effect
(Rapporteur) and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl,                     in the domestic legal systems of Member States of the
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment                       European Community, so that Turkish children residing
on 23 October 2003, in which it has ruled:                                        legally in a Member State of the Community with their
                                                                                parents who are or have been legally employed in that
1.    Articles 2(w) and 8(3)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/                Member State, and who have the same qualifications as
      97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild                  the children of nationals of that Member State, are entitled
      fauna and flora by regulating trade therein, as amended by                  to equal access to general education, apprenticeship and
      Commission Regulation (EC) No 2307/97 of 18 November                        vocational training?
      1997 are to be interpreted as meaning that the animals referred
      to in Annex A to that regulation but which have been stuffed          2.    If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:
      fall within the definition of ‘worked specimens’ for the purposes
      of those provisions.                                                        Do Turkish children still qualify as ‘residing legally with
                                                                                their parents’ if they establish and maintain their own
                                                                                principal residence at the place of their university edu-
2.    Article 8(3)(b) of Regulation No 338/97, as amended by
                                                                                cation and are registered with only a subsidiary residence
      Regulation No 2307/97, is to be interpreted as meaning that
                                                                                at their parents’ address?
      receiving specimens as a gift or inheriting them, and killing
      animals and then taking them into one’s possession, makes
      them ‘acquired’ within the meaning of that provision. It is not       3.    If Question 2 is answered in the affirmative:
      necessary that the person who acquired the specimen more than
                                                                                Does the first sentence of Article 9 of Decision No 1/80
      50 years previously be the present owner.
                                                                                of the EEC/Turkey Association Council confer on the
                                                                                beneficiaries of that provision entitlement not only to
3.    Notwithstanding the provision in the second paragraph of                    equal access to educational facilities but also to equal
      Article 32 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1808/2001 of                    access to State benefits granted by the Member State with
      30 August 2001 laying down detailed rules concerning the                    the aim of facilitating participation in education or
      implementation of Regulation No 338/97, Article 8(3)(b) of                  training, or is Article 9 of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC/
      the latter regulation must be interpreted as meaning that the               Turkey Association Council to be interpreted as reserving
      management authority of the Member State concerned must                     to Member States the possibility of making the grant of
      have been able to ascertain that the specimen in question was               social benefits in the area of education subject to other
      acquired in accordance with the conditions laid down in                     conditions or of limiting those benefits?
      Article 2(w) of Regulation No 338/97, as amended by
      Regulation No 2307/97.
                                                                            4.    If Questions 2 and 3 are answered in the affirmative:
                                                                                Does that also apply to a university education in the
(1) OJ C 144 of 15.6.2002.
                                                                                Turkish homeland for the beneficiaries?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsger-
icht Sigmaringen by order of that Court of 31 July                          Action brought on 25 September 2003 by the Italian
2003 in the administrative law case of Gaye Gürol                           Republic against the Commission of the European Com-
against Landesamt für Ausbildungsförderung Nordrhein-                                                    munities
                               Westfalen
                                                                                (Case C-401/03)
                           (Case C-374/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 304/14)
                           (2003/C 304/13)
                                                                            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht                     Communities on 25 September 2003 by the Italian Republic
Sigmaringen (Administrative Court, Sigmaringen) of 31 July                  represented by Ivo Maria Braguglia, acting as Agent and
2003, received at the Court Registry on 8 September 2003,                   Antonio Cingolo, Avvocato dello Stato.


title: Code of Conduct

text:
               22.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/1

         Code of Conduct
   (2007/C 223/01)
   THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
   Having regard to the deliberations of the Court of Justice at its meetings of 28 March, 24 April and 3 July 2007;
   Having regard to Articles 2, 4, 6, 18 and 47 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and to Article 5 of the Annex to that Statute, to Articles 3 and 4 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice and to Articles 4 and 5 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance;
   Whereas, without prejudice to the applicable provisions of the Statute and of the Rules of Procedure, it is appropriate to establish a Code of Conduct which clarifies certain obligations arising under those provisions as regards the Members of the Court of Justice, the Court of First Instance and the Civil Service Tribunal;
   After consulting the Court of First Instance and the Civil Service Tribunal;
   Has decided to adopt the present Code of Conduct:
   Article 1
   General principles
   1.   This Code of Conduct shall apply to Members and former Members of the Court of Justice, the Court of First Instance and the Civil Service Tribunal.
   2.   Members shall devote themselves fully to the performance of their duties.
   3.   Members shall refrain from making any statement outside the Court which may harm the reputation of the Court or which may be interpreted as the adoption of a position by the Court on issues falling outside its institutional role.
   Article 2
   Integrity
   Members shall not accept gifts of any kind which might call into question their independence.
   Article 3
   Impartiality
   Members shall avoid any situation which may give rise to a conflict of interest.
   Article 4
   Declaration as to financial interests
   1.   On taking up their duties, Members shall submit a declaration as to their financial interests to the President of the Court of Justice.
   2.   The declaration referred to in paragraph 1 shall be worded as follows: ‘I declare that I have no interest in any property or asset which might compromise my impartiality and my independence in the performance of my duties’.
   Article 5
   Other activities
   1.   Members who wish to take part in an external activity shall request prior authorisation from the Court or Tribunal of which they are a Member. They shall undertake, however, to comply with their obligation to be available so as to devote themselves fully to the performance of their duties.
   2.   Members may be authorised to participate in teaching activities, conferences, seminars or symposia, but may not receive any uncustomary financial remuneration for doing so.
   3.   Members may also be authorised to engage in activities of an academic nature and to assume unremunerated honorary duties in foundations or similar bodies in the cultural, artistic, social, sporting or charitable fields and in teaching or research establishments. In that connection, they shall undertake not to engage in any managerial or administrative activities which might compromise their independence or their availability or which might give rise to a conflict of interest. The expression ‘foundations or similar bodies’ means non-profit-making establishments or associations which carry out activities in the general interest in the fields referred to.
   Article 6
   Undertakings of Members after ceasing to hold office
   1.   After ceasing to hold office, Members shall continue to be bound by the duty of discretion.
   2.   Members shall undertake that after ceasing to hold office, they will not become involved:

               —

               in any manner whatsoever in cases which were pending before the Court or Tribunal of which they were a Member when they ceased to hold office;

               —

               in any manner whatsoever in cases directly and clearly connected with cases, including concluded cases, which they have dealt with as Judge or Advocate General;

         and that, for a period of three years from the date of their ceasing to hold office, they will not act

               —

               as representatives of parties, in either written or oral pleadings, in cases before the Community judicature.

         3.   Former Members may be involved as counsel, adviser or expert in other cases or provide a legal opinion, provided that they comply with the obligations arising under paragraph 1.
   Article 7
   Application of the Code
   1.   The President of the Court of Justice, assisted by a Consultative Committee composed of the three Members of the Court of Justice who have been longest in office, shall be responsible for ensuring the proper application of this Code of Conduct.
   2.   The Court of Justice shall ensure compliance with the Code and shall take decisions in cases of doubt. Where appropriate, it shall consult with the Court of First Instance or the Civil Service Tribunal.
   Article 8
   Entry into force
   1.   This Code of Conduct shall enter into force on 1 October 2007.
   2.   The declaration of the Members in office on that date shall be submitted to the President of the Court of Justice no later than 30 November 2007.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 October 2000 in Case C-480/98: Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the European Communities (State aid — Aid granted to undertakings in the Magefesa group)

text:
C 355/4                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          9.12.2000
2.   National rules concerning the determination of the date on            Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Divisional
     which a vehicle was first authorised for use on the public            Court) (United Kingdom) for a preliminary ruling in the
     highway, such as the Regeling houdende vaststelling van regels        proceedings pending before that court between The Queen
     omtrent de wijze waarop de datum van eerste toelating tot de          and Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte:
     openbare weg op het kentekenbewijs, dan wel het registratiebe-        J.H. Cooke & Sons — on the interpretation of the first
     wijs van een voertuig wordt bepaald, do not fall within the           paragraph of Article 2 of Commission Regulation (EC)
     scope of Directive 83/189, as amended by Directive 88/182.            No 762/94 of 6 April 1994 laying down detailed rules for the
                                                                           application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1765/92 with
3.   National rules which provide that the date on which an                regard to the set-side scheme (OJ 1994 L 90, p. 8) — the Court
     imported vehicle was first authorised for use on the public           (Sixth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the
     highway is to be fixed at the date on which its registration          Chamber, V. Skouris and R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), Judges;
     certificate was issued only where the vehicle has not been            P. Léger, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar,
     registered for more than two days in another Member State             has given a judgment on 12 October 2000, in which it has
     constitute a measure having an effect equivalent to a quantitative    ruled:
     restriction on imports for the purposes of Article 30 of the EC
     Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 28 EC).                         The first paragraph of Article 2 of Commission Regulation (EC)
                                                                           No 762/94 of 6 April 1994 laying down detailed rules for the
4.   Such national rules may, in spite of their restrictive effects on     application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1765/92 with regard
     the free movement of goods, be justified by imperative require-       to the set-aside scheme must be interpreted as meaning that the
     ments such as road safety and/or protection of the environment        expression ‘an area which has been cultivated in the previous year
     if it can be shown that the resulting restriction is necessary to     with a view to a harvest’ covers land previously under grass that has
     ensure road safety and/or protection of the environment and           subsequently been cut and used for silage.
     that the restriction is not disproportionate to those objectives,
     particularly in the sense that no other, less restrictive, measures
                                                                           (1) OJ C 397 of 19.12.1998.
     are available.
(1) OJ C 327 of 24.10.1998.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 12 October 2000
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                           in Case C-480/98: Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the
                          (Sixth Chamber)                                                     European Communities (1)
                                                                           (State aid — Aid granted to undertakings in the Magefesa
                       of 12 October 2000
                                                                                group)
in Case C-372/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                                            (2000/C 355/07)
the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s
Bench Division (Divisional Court) (United Kingdom): The
  Queen v Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1)                                     (Language of the case: Spanish)
(Common Agricultural Policy — Regulation (EEC)                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
No 1765/92 — Regulation (EC) No 762/94 — Aids linked                                          in the European Court Reports)
to the area down to arable crops and set-side — Meaning of
an ‘area which has been cultivated in the previous year with
                         a view to harvest’)                               In Case C-480/98: Kingdom of Spain (Agent: R. Silva de
                                                                           Lapuerta) v Commission of the European Communities
                                                                           (Agents: G. Rozet and R. Vidal Puig) — application for
                          (2000/C 355/06)                                  annulment of Commission Decision 1999/509/EC of 14 Octo-
                                                                           ber 1998 concerning aid granted by Spain to companies in the
                                                                           Magefesa group and their successors (OJ 1999 L 198, p. 15)
                   (Language of the case: English)                         — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann,
                                                                           President of the Chamber, V. Skouris and J.-P. Puissochet
                                                                           (Rapporteur), Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,
In Case C-72/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of               Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the High Court of                  on 12 October 2000, in which it:
 ---pagebreak--- 9.12.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 355/5
1.    Declares that Commission Decision 1999/509/EC of                     1.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
      14 October 1998 concerning aid granted by Spain to
      companies in the Magefesa group and their successors is
                                                                           2.    The Commission of the European Communities is ordered to
      annulled in so far as it includes in the amount of aid to be
                                                                                pay the costs.
      recovered interest falling due after Indosa and Cunosa were
      declared insolvent on aid unlawfully received before that
      declaration;                                                         3.    The French Republic shall bear its own costs.
2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;
                                                                           (1) OJ C 357 of 22.11.1997.
3.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay, in addition to its own
      costs, three quarters of the costs of the Commission of the
      European Communities.
(1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.
                                                                           Request by the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties for an Opinion pursuant to Article 300(6) of the EC
                                                                                Treaty
                    ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Opinion 1/00)
                          (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                (2000/C 355/09)
                      of 13 September 2000
                                                                           By an application made by the Commission of the European
in Case C-341/97: Commission of the European Communi-                      Communities, represented by Frank Benyon and Marie-José
           ties v the Kingdom of the Netherlands (1)                       Jonczy, Legal Advisers, acting as Agents, received at the Court
                                                                           Registry on 13 October 2000, the Court of Justice of the
                                                                           European Communities has been asked to deliver an Opinion
(Failure to fulfil obligations — Failure to give proper notice             pursuant to Article 300(6) of the EC Treaty.
                 — Inadmissibility of the action)
                          (2000/C 355/08)                                  The Commission of the European Communities asks the Court
                                                                           of Justice to deliver an Opinion on the compatibility with the
                                                                           provisions of the EC Treaty of the draft Agreement establishing
                                                                           a European Common Aviation Area to be concluded between
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)                          the Republic of Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, the Republic of
                                                                           Estonia, the European Community, the Republic of Hungary,
                                                                           Iceland, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     Kingdom of Norway, the Republic of Poland, Romania, the
                   in the European Court Reports)                          Slovak Republic and the Republic of Slovenia, in particular on
                                                                           the question whether
In Case C-341/97: Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: H. van Vliet), supported by French Republic (Agent:                (i)   draft Article 23(2), which gives the option to Contracting
K. Rispal-Bellanger), Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agent:                         Parties to decide whether their courts should refer
M.A. Fierstra) — application for a declaration that, by adopting                 questions of interpretation to the Court of Justice, and
on 16 December 1992 the Regulation for the prevention of
the introduction of foreign toxic dinoflagellata, the Kingdom              (ii) draft Article 23(3), which gives to the Joint Committee the
of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under                    final responsibility for the homogeneous interpretation of
Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,                       the Agreement,
Articles 28 and 30 EC) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed
of L. Sevón, President of the First Chamber, acting for the
President of the Fifth Chamber, P.J.G. Kapteyn, P. Jann,                   are satisfactory in this respect.
H. Ragnemalm and M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), Judges;
G. Cosmas, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator,
subsequently R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 13 Septem-
ber 2000, the operative part of which is as follows:


title: Joined Cases C-671/11 to C-676/11: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 June 2013 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer), successor in law to the Office national interprofessionnel des fruits, des légumes, des vins et de l’horticulture (Viniflhor) v Société anonyme d’intérêt collectif agricole Unanimes (C-671/11 and C-672/11), Organisation de producteurs Les Cimes (C-673/11), Société Agroprovence (C-674/11), Regalp SA (C-675/11), Coopérative des producteurs d’asperges de Montcalm (COPAM) (C-676/11) (Agriculture — European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund — ‘Period under scrutiny’ — Possibility of extending the period under scrutiny and adjusting the temporal parameters — Objective of effective supervision — Legal certainty)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/21

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 June 2013 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer), successor in law to the Office national interprofessionnel des fruits, des légumes, des vins et de l’horticulture (Viniflhor) v Société anonyme d’intérêt collectif agricole Unanimes (C-671/11 and C-672/11), Organisation de producteurs Les Cimes (C-673/11), Société Agroprovence (C-674/11), Regalp SA (C-675/11), Coopérative des producteurs d’asperges de Montcalm (COPAM) (C-676/11)
   (Joined Cases C-671/11 to C-676/11) (1)

   (Agriculture - European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund - ‘Period under scrutiny’ - Possibility of extending the period under scrutiny and adjusting the temporal parameters - Objective of effective supervision - Legal certainty)
   2013/C 225/34
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer), successor in law to the Office national interprofessionnel des fruits, des légumes, des vins et de l’horticulture (Viniflhor)

      Respondents: Société anonyme d’intérêt collectif agricole Unanimes (C-671/11 and C-672/11), Organisation de producteurs Les Cimes (C-673/11), Société Agroprovence (C-674/11), Regalp SA (C-675/11), Coopérative des producteurs d’asperges de Montcalm (COPAM) (C-676/11)

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Conseil d’État — Interpretation of Article 2(4) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4045/89 of 21 December 1989 on scrutiny by Member States of transactions forming part of the system of financing by the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund and repealing Directive 77/435/EEC (OJ 1989 L 388, p. 18) — ‘Period under scrutiny’ — Option available to Member States of extending the period under scrutiny in the light of the need to protect the financial interests of the European Union — Obligation to limit the scrutiny period — Repayment of part of the aid received

      Operative part of the judgment

   The second subparagraph of Article 2(4) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4045/89 of 21 December 1989 on scrutiny by Member States of transactions forming part of the system of financing by the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund and repealing Directive 77/435/EEC, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 3094/94 of 12 December 1994, must be interpreted as meaning that, where a Member State makes use of the option of extending the period under scrutiny, that period need not necessarily end during the preceding scrutiny period; rather, it may also end after that period has elapsed. That provision must nonetheless also be interpreted as not conferring upon operators a right which would enable them to oppose inspections other or broader than those envisaged under that provision. It follows that the fact that an inspection relates only to a period ending before the preceding scrutiny period begins cannot, of itself, make that inspection unlawful with regard to the operators scrutinised.

      (1)  OJ C 89, 24.3.2012.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 May 2000 in Case C-230/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Civile e Penale di Treviso): Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v Schiavon Silvano (Common commercial policy — Regulation No 545/92 and Regulation No 859/92 — Imports into the Community of "baby-beef" originating in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia — Body competent to issue certificates of origin)

text:
C 233/6                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          12.8.2000
assurance and amending Directives 73/239/EEC and                           laying down detailed rules governing imports of ‘baby-beef’
88/357/EEC (Third Non-life Insurance Directive) (OJ 1992                   originating in the Republics of Croatia and Slovenia and the
L 228, p. 1) and under the EC Treaty — the Court (Sixth                    Yugoslav Republics of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia and
Chamber), composed of: J.C. Moitinho de Almeida (Rappor-                   Montenegro (OJ 1992 L 89, p. 26) — the Court (Second
teur), President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet,             Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), President
G. Hirsch and F. Macken, Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate General;              of the Chamber, G. Hirsch and V. Skouris, Judges; D. Ruiz-
D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Re-                  Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
gistrar, has given a judgment on 18 May 2000, in which it:                 given a judgment on 18 May 2000, in which it has ruled:
1.    Declares that, by adopting and maintaining in force Article 2        Article 7 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 545/92 of 3 February
      of the law of 9 July 1975 on the control of insurance                1992 concerning the arrangements applicable to the import into the
      undertakings, as amended by the Royal Decree of 12 August            Community of products originating in the Republics of Croatia
      1994, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its                and Slovenia and the Yugoslav Republics of Bosnia-Herzegovina,
      obligations under Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June             Macedonia and Montenegro (OJ 1992 L 63, p. 1) and Commission
      1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administra-        Regulation (EEC) No 859/92 of 3 April 1992 laying down detailed
      tive provisions relating to direct insurance other than life         rules governing imports of ‘baby-beef’ originating in the Republics of
      assurance and amending Directives 73/239/EEC and                     Croatia and Slovenia and the Yugoslav Republics of Bosnia-
      88/357/EEC (Third Non-life Insurance Directive);                     Herzegovina, Macedonia and Montenegro (OJ 1992 L 89, p. 26)
                                                                           must be interpreted as meaning that the importation into the
2.    Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.                      Community in September and October 1992 of consignments of
                                                                           ‘baby-beef’ originating in and coming from the former Yugoslav
(1) OJ C 258 of 15.8.1998.                                                 Republic of Macedonia with certificates of origin issued by the
                                                                           Yugoslav body which was the competent authority prior to the
                                                                           denunciation by the Community of the EEC-Yugoslavia Cooperation
                                                                           Agreement was not capable of benefiting from the arrangements for
                                                                           reduced import levies provided for in Article 7 of Regulation
                                                                           No 545/92 even though a new competent body had not been
                                                                           designated for the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia at the
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     time the import operations took place.
                        (Second Chamber)                                   (1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.
                          of 18 May 2000
in Case C-230/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunale Civile e Penale di Treviso): Amministrazio-
     ne delle Finanze dello Stato v Schiavon Silvano (1)                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Common commercial policy — Regulation No 545/92 and                                                 (Fifth Chamber)
Regulation No 859/92 — Imports into the Community of
‘baby-beef’ originating in the former Yugoslav Republic of                                           of 18 May 2000
Macedonia — Body competent to issue certificates of origin)
                                                                           in Case C-301/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                          (2000/C 233/11)                                  the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven): KVS
                                                                           International BV v Minister van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer
                                                                                en Visserij (1)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                           (Agriculture — Animal health in the veterinary sector in
                                                                           intra-Community trade in and imports of deep-frozen semen
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     of domestic animals of the bovine species — Certification of
                   in the European Court Reports)                          bovine semen intended for export to a Member State —
                                                                           Directives 88/407/EEC and 93/60/EEC — Scope ratione
In Case C-230/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                                            temporis)
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunale Civile
e Penale di Treviso (District Court, Treviso), Italy, for a                                          (2000/C 233/12)
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato and
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
Schiavon Silvano, an insolvent firm, on the interpretation of
Council Regulation (EEC) No 545/92 of 3 February 1992
concerning the arrangements applicable to the import into the              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Community of products originating in the Republics of                                         in the European Court Reports)
Croatia and Slovenia and the Yugoslav Republics of Bosnia-
Herzegovina, Macedonia and Montenegro (OJ 1992 L 63, p. 1)                 In Case C-301/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
and Commission Regulation (EEC) No 859/92 of 3 April 1992                  the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the College van Beroep


title: Case C-585/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 12 November 2015 — Raffinerie Tirlemontoise SA v État belge

text:
               1.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/31

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 12 November 2015 — Raffinerie Tirlemontoise SA v État belge
   (Case C-585/15)
   (2016/C 038/44)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Raffinerie Tirlemontoise SA

      Defendant: État belge

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 33(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2038/1999 of 13 September 1999 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (1) to be interpreted — particularly in the light of the judgment of 27 September 2012 in Zuckerfabrik Jülich (C-113/10, C-147/10 and C-234/10) — as meaning that for the purpose of calculating the average loss, it is necessary to divide, for all categories of sugar exported, the total amount of the actual expenditure by the total amount of the quantities exported, regardless of whether refunds have actually been paid for those quantities or not?

               2.

               Is Article 33(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2038/1999 of 13 September 1999 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector to be interpreted — particularly in the light of the judgment of 27 September 2012 in Zuckerfabrik Jülich (C-113/10, C-147/10 and C-234/10) — as meaning that the carry forward to be taken into account (as a debit or credit item) in the overall calculation of the production levies is to be calculated, for all categories of sugar exported, by dividing the total amount of the actual expenditure by the total amount of the quantities actually exported, regardless of whether or not export refunds have actually been paid for those quantities?

               3.

               If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, are Regulation No 2267/2000 (2) and Regulation No 1993/2001 (3) invalid?

      (1)  OJ 1999 L 252, p. 1.

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2267/2000 of 12 October 2000 fixing the production levies and the coefficient for calculating the additional levy in the sugar sector for the 1999/2000 marketing year (OJ 2000 L 259, p. 29).

      (3)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1993/2001 of 11 October 2001 fixing the production levies in the sugar sector for the 2000/01 marketing year (OJ 2001 L 271, p. 15).


title: Case T-370/12: Action brought on 20 August 2012 — American Express Marketing & Development v OHIM (IP ZONE EUROPE)

text:
               20.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/13

         Action brought on 20 August 2012 — American Express Marketing & Development v OHIM (IP ZONE EUROPE)
   (Case T-370/12)
   2012/C 319/25
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: American Express Marketing & Development Corp. (New York, United States) (represented by: V. Spitz, A. Gaul, T. Golda, and S. Kirschstein-Freund, lawyers)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 June 2012 in case R 1452/2011-2;

               —

               In the alternative, amend the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 June 2012 in case R 1452/2011-2, and rule that the appeal is justified; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings and of the proceedings before the Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘IP ZONE EUROPE’ for services in class 42 — Community trade mark application No 9488057

      Decision of the Examiner: Rejected the CTM application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 12 October 1995 in Case C-104/94: (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Civile e Penale di Ravenna): Cereol Italia Srl v. Azienda Agricola Castello Sas (System of aid for soya production - Penalty for inaccurate information in the cultivation contract)

text:
25 . 11 . 95          EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 315/ 1
                                                                 I
                                                           (Information)
                                             COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                        COURT OF JUSTICE
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       use of a language easily understood by purchasers, from
                       ( Fifth Chamber )                                  requiring the use ofa language which is that most widely
                                                                          spoken in the area in which the product is offered for
                     of 12 October 1995
                                                                          sale, even ifthe use at the same time ofanother language
in Case C-85 /94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from the            is not excluded.
Hof van Beroep ): Groupement des Producteurs,
Importateurs et Agents Généraux d'Eaux Minérales                     2 . All the compulsory particulars specified in Directive
        Etrangères , VZW ( Piageme ) v. Peeters NV (')                    79/1 12/EEC must appear on the labelling in a language
(Consumer protection — Labelling of mineral waters —                      easily understood by consumers in the State or region
                           Language)                                      concerned or by means of other measures such as
                         (9 SIC 315/01 )                                  designs, symbols or pictograms. The ease with which the
                                                                          information supplied can be understood must be
                                                                          assessed in the light of all the circumstances in each
                (Language of the case: Dutch)                             individual case .
                                                                     (') O J No C 120 , 30 . 4 . 1994 .
(Provisional translation : the definitive translation will be
         published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-85/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty by the Hof van Beroep , Brussels, for a                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Groupement des Producteurs , Importateurs                                       ( Fifth Chamber )
et Agents Généraux d'Eaux Minérales Etrangeres, VZW                                         of 12 October 1995
( Piageme ) and Peeters NV on the interpretation of
Articles 30 , 128 and 129a of the EC Treaty and Article 14 of
                                                                     in Case C-104/94 : ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
Council Directive 79/ 1 12/EEC of 18 December 1978 on the
                                                                     the Tribunale Civile e Penale di Ravenna ) : Cereol Italia Sri v.
                                                                                Azienda Agricola Castello Sas (')
approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to
the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs for        (System ofaid for soya production — Penalty for inaccurate
sale to the ultimate consumer ( OJ 1979 L 33 , p. 1 ) — the                      information in the cultivation contract)
Court ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of: D. A. O. Edward                                           ( 95/C 315/02 )
( Rapporteur ), President of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de
Almeida , C. Gulmann, P. Jann and L. Sevón , Judges; G.                               (Language of the case: Italian)
Cosmas, Advocate-General ; H. A. Rühl , Principal
Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on
12 October 1995 , in which it ruled :                                (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                               published in the European Court Reports)
1 . Article 14 of Council Directive 79/112/EEC of                    In Case C-104/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
     ? 8 December 7 978 on the approximation of the laws of          of the EC Treaty by the Tribunale Civile e Penale di Ravenna
     the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation       ( Civil and Criminal Court, Ravenna ) for a preliminary
     and advertising of foodstuffs for sale to the ultimate          ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
     consumer precludes a Member State, with regard to the           Cereol Italia Sri and Azienda Agricola Castello Sas — on the
 ---pagebreak--- No C 315 /2            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   25 . 11 . 95
interpretation of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1491 /85 of          Enrique Gonzalez Diaz ) v. Kingdom of Spain ( Agents :
23 May 1985 laying down special measures in respect of               Alberto Jose Navarro Gonzalez and Gloria Calvo Diaz ) —
soya beans ( OJ 1985 L 151 , p. 15 ), of Council Regulation          application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt or to
( EEC ) No 2194/85 of 25 July 1985 adopting general rules            communicate to the Commission the laws, regulations and
concerning special measures for soya beans ( OJ 1985 L 204 ,         administrative provisions necessary to comply with the
p. 1 ), and of Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 2537/89 of           second Council Directive 90/619/EEC of 8 November 1990
8 August 1989 laying down detailed rules for the                     on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative
application of the special measures for soya beans ( OJ 1989         provisions relating to direct life insurance, laying down
L 245 , p. 8 ), as amended by Commission Regulation ( EEC )          provisions to facilitate the effective exercise of freedom to
No 150/90 of 19 January 1990 ( OJ 1 990 L 18 , p. 10 ) — the         provide services and amending Directive 79/267/EEC ( OJ
Court ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of: D. A. O. Edward,                1 990 L 330 , p. 50 ), the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil
President of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida , C.             its obligations under the EC Treaty — the Court ( Sixth
Gulmann ( Rapporteur ), P. Jann and L. Sevon, Judges; C. O.          Chamber ), composed of: G. Hirsch , President of the Second
Lenz, Advocate-General ; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the          Chamber acting as President of the Sixth Chamber, G. F.
Registrar, gave a judgment on 12 October 1995 , the                  Mancini ( Rapporteur ), F. A. Schockweiler, J. L. Murray,
operative part of which is as follows :                              and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General ;
                                                                     R. Grass , Registrar, gave a judgment on 12 October 1 995 , in
                                                                     which it :
1 . Examination of the first four questions referred for a
     preliminary ruling has revealed nothing capable of
     affecting the validity of Article 29a of Commission             1 . Declares that, by failing to bring into force within the
     Regulation No 2537/89 of 8 August 1989 laying down                   prescribed period the laws, regulations and
     detailed rules for the application of the special measures           administrative provisions necessary to comply with the
     for soya beans, as amended by Commission Regulation                  second Council Directive 90/619/EEC of 8 November
     (EEC) No 150/90.                                                     1990 on the coordination of laws, regulations and
                                                                          administrative provisions relating to direct life
2 . Article 6 (3) of Regulation (EEC) No 2537/89, as                      insurance, laying down provisions to facilitate the
     amended, must be understood as meaning that soya                     effective exercise of freedom to provide services and
     producers must notify the competent agency of any                    amending Directive 79/267/EEC, the Kingdom of Spain
     change in the areas indicated in the cultivation contract,           has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC
     in particular any reduction in those areas, even if it is            Treaty;
     attributable to natural occurrences, such as heavy
     rainfall, where such a change occurs before the lodging
                                                                     2 . Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
     of the contract, as well as all changes which occur after
     lodging of the cultivation contract and which ,
     individually or collectively, involve more than 10% of          (•) O J No C 288 , 15 . 10 . 1994 .
     the areas indicated in the cultivation contract and more
     than one hectare .
(M Ol No C 146 , 28 . 5 . 1994 .
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 17 October 1995
                                                                     in Case C-450/93 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                the Bundesarbeitsgericht ): Eckhard Kalanke v. Freie
                        ( Sixth Chamber)                                                   Hansestadt Bremen (')
                      of 12 October 1995                              (Equal treatment of men and women — Directive
                                                                      76/207/EEC — Article 2 (4) — Promotion — Equally
in    Case    C-242/94 :     Commission     of the    European
            Communities v. Kingdom of Spain (')                      qualified candidates of different sexes — Priority given to
                                                                                women)
 (Failure to fulfil obligations — Directive 90/619/EEC —                                        ( 95/C 315/04 )
                      Failure to transpose)
                          ( 95/C 315/03 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                 (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                 published in the European Court Reports)
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                      In Case C-450/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177
 In   Case     C-242/94 :    Commission     of  the   European        of the EC Treaty from the Bundesarbeitsgericht ( Federal
 Communities ( Agents : Dimitrios Gouloussis and Francisco            Labour Court) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings


title: Judgment of the Court of 11 September 2013 in Case E-6/12 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v Kingdom of Norway (Failure by an EEA/EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 — Social security for migrant workers)

text:
               19.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 372/17

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 11 September 2013
   in Case E-6/12
   EFTA Surveillance Authority v Kingdom of Norway
   (Failure by an EEA/EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 — Social security for migrant workers)
   (2013/C 372/06)
   In Case E-6/12, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Kingdom of Norway — APPLICATION for a declaration that, by maintaining in force the administrative practice of not assessing whether a child, living together with another parent outside Norway, is mainly dependent on the parent who is living in Norway and separated from the other parent, the Kingdom of Norway is in breach of Article 1(f)(i), second sentence, in conjunction with Article 76 of the Act referred to at point 1 of Annex VI to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 11 September 2013, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The Court hereby:

               1.

               Declares that, by maintaining in force the administrative practice under the Child Benefits Act of not assessing whether a child, living together with another parent outside Norway, is mainly dependent on the parent who is living in Norway and separated from the other parent, the Kingdom of Norway is in breach of Article 1(f)(i), second sentence, of the Act referred to at point 1 of Annex VI to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto;

               2.

               Dismisses the application as to the remainder; and,

               3.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.


title: Case T-90/14: Action brought on 3 February 2014  — Secolux v Commission and CdT

text:
               5.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 135/50

         Action brought on 3 February 2014 — Secolux v Commission and CdT
   (Case T-90/14)
   2014/C 135/64
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Secolux, Association pour le contrôle de la sécurité de la construction (Capellen, Luxembourg) (represented by: N. Prüm-Carré, lawyer)

      Defendants: Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union (CdT) and the European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of 3 December 2013 of the European Commission — acting both for itself and on behalf of other contracting authorities, namely the Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union and the Publications Office of the European Union — rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant for Lot 1, ‘Statutory environmental checks and checks relating to safety and welfare’, in the context of call for tenders No 02/2013/OIL ‘Safety checks’, and awarding the contract at issue to another tenderer;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the sum of EUR 467 186,08 in damages as compensation for the harm sustained, together with statutory interest accrued from the date on which the contract was awarded until payment of the sums due;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the entire costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging procedural irregularities, since contradictory information was brought to the applicant’s knowledge concerning the amount of the successful tender for Lot No 1. The applicant submits that:

                           —

                           the amount of the tender of the successful tenderer, referred to in the Commission’s letter dated 11 December 2013 informing the applicant of the characteristics and relative advantages of the successful tender, is inaccurate because it is too low. In that case, the applicant did not have access to sure information on the price of the successful tender, which infringes the obligation to state reasons; or

                           —

                           the value of the contract awarded, contained in the contract award notice published on 24 December 2013, (1) is incorrect because it is too high. In that case the contract award notice does not reflect the value of the successful tender, which constitutes a breach of the obligation of transparency; or

                           —

                           the amount of the successful tender as stated in the Commission’s letter of 11 December 2013 and the value of the contract as stated in the contract award notice are correct. In that case, the contract was awarded for an amount greater than the successful tender, which constitutes a serious infringement of the principles of transparency, equal treatment and non-discrimination.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging an irregularity in the successful tender, in so far as the successful tenderer could not, at the price tendered, carry out correctly all the services requested with staff having the required qualifications.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that there was an abnormally low tender. The applicant submits that there is a body of evidence indicating that the successful tender does not accord with any economic reality. The Commission ought therefore to have requested details from the successful tenderer of the constituent elements of its tender, pursuant to Article 151 of delegated regulation No 1268/2012. (2)

               4.

               Fourth plea in law alleging breach of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination during both the preparation and the evaluation of the tenders. The applicant submits:

                           —

                           first that, since the successful tenderer was also awarded the earlier contracts, it had privileged information in relation to locations, services to be performed and amounts actually sought by the Commission, which ought to have led the Commission to request details from the applicant on the basis of Article 160(3) of delegated regulation No 1268/2012;

                           —

                           and, secondly, that the Commission took into account the quality of the services previously provided by the tenderer awarded the earlier contracts when evaluating the tenders submitted in respect of the contract to be awarded.

      (1)  OJ 2013/S 249-433951.

      (2)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 of 29 October 2012 on the rules of application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (OJ 2012 L 362, p. 1).


title: Case T-420/10: Judgment of the General Court of 27 March 2012 — Armani v OHIM — Del Prete (AJ AMICI JUNIOR) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark AJ AMICI JUNIOR — Earlier national figurative mark AJ ARMANI JEANS — Earlier national word mark ARMANI JUNIOR — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               5.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 133/24

         Judgment of the General Court of 27 March 2012 — Armani v OHIM — Del Prete (AJ AMICI JUNIOR)
   (Case T-420/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark AJ AMICI JUNIOR - Earlier national figurative mark AJ ARMANI JEANS - Earlier national word mark ARMANI JUNIOR - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2012/C 133/46
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Giorgio Armani SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: M. Rapisardi, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Annunziata Del Prete (Naples, Italy) (represented by: R. Bocchini, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 July 2010 (Case R 1360/2009-2), relating to opposition proceeding between Giorgio Armani SpA and Ms Annunziata Del Prete

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 8 July 2010 (Case R 1360/2009-2);

               2.

               Orders OHIM and Ms Annunziata Del Prete to each pay half of the costs incurred by Giorgio Armani SpA before the Board of Appeal;

               3.

               Orders OHIM and Ms Del Prete to bear their own costs and to each pay half of the costs incurred by Giorgio Armani before the Court.

      (1)  OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.