title: Judgment of the Court of 5 November 2002 in Case C-472/98: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Conclusion and application by a Member State of a bilateral "open skies" agreement with the United States of America — Secondary legislation governing the internal air transport market (Regulations (EEC) Nos 2299/89, 2407/92, 2408/92, 2409/92 and 95/93) — External competence of the Community — Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) — Article 5 of the EC Treaty (now Article 10 EC))

text:
C 323/6                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                        21.12.2002
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                            agreements previously concluded, the Grand Duchy of
                                                                                Luxembourg has, by not rescinding those provisions of
                                                                                the said previously concluded agreements which are
                       of 5 November 2002                                         incompatible with the EC Treaty, especially Article 52
                                                                                thereof, and with secondary law, or by failing to take all
                                                                                legally possible steps to that end, failed to comply with
in Case C-472/98: Commission of the European Communi-                             its obligations under Article 5 of the Treaty and under
            ties v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg ( 1)                                 secondary law,
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                      the Court, composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Sixth
Conclusion and application by a Member State of a bilateral                 Chamber, acting for the President, R. Schintgen (President of
‘open skies’ agreement with the United States of America —                  Chamber), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, P. Jann,
Secondary legislation governing the internal air transport                  V. Skouris (Rapporteur), F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr
market (Regulations (EEC) Nos 2299/89, 2407/92, 2408/                       and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate
92, 2409/92 and 95/93) — External competence of the                         General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, and D. Louterman-
Community — Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after                         Hubeau, Head of Division, has given a judgment on 5 Novem-
amendment, Article 43 EC) — Article 5 of the EC Treaty                      ber 2002, in which it:
                       (now Article 10 EC))
                                                                            1.    Declares that, by entering into or maintaining in force, despite
                          (2002/C 323/06)                                         the renegotiation of the air transport agreement between the
                                                                                Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and the United States of America
                                                                                of 19 August 1986, international commitments with the
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                United States of America
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published            —     concerning air fares and rates charged by carriers desig-
                   in the European Court Reports)                                       nated by the United States of America on intra-Com-
                                                                                munity routes,
                                                                                —     concerning computerised reservation systems offered for
In Case C-472/98, Commission of the European Communities                                use or used in Luxembourg territory, and
(Agent: F. Benyon) v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Agent:
P. Steinmetz), supported by Kingdom of the Netherlands
(Agents: M. A. Fierstra and J. van Bakel): Application for                        —     recognising the United States of America as having the
                                                                                right to withdraw, suspend or limit traffic rights in cases
                                                                                where air carriers designated by the Grand Duchy of
—     as its principal claim, a declaration that, by having                             Luxembourg are not owned by the latter or by Luxembourg
      individually negotiated, initialled and concluded, in 1995,                       nationals,
      and applied an ‘open skies’ agreement with the United
      States of America in the field of transport, the Grand
      Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations                    the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its
      under the EC Treaty, and in particular Articles 5 (now                      obligations under Article 5 of the EC Treaty (now Article 10
      Article 10 EC) and 52 (now, after amendment, Article 43                     EC) and Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
      EC) thereof, and also under secondary law adopted                           Article 43 EC) and under Council Regulation (EEC) No 2409/
      pursuant to that Treaty, and in particular Council Regu-                    92 of 23 July 1992 on fares and rates for air services and
      lation (EEC) No 2407/92 of 23 July 1992 on licensing of                     Council Regulation (EEC) No 2299/89 of 24 July 1989 on a
      air carriers (OJ 1992 L 240, p. 1), Council Regulation                      code of conduct for computerised reservation systems, as
      (EEC) No 2408/92 of 23 July 1992 on access for                              amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3089/93 of
      Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes                        29 October 1993;
      (OJ 1992 L 240, p. 8), Council Regulation (EEC) No 2409/
      92 of 23 July 1992 on fares and rates for air services (OJ            2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;
      1992 L 240, p. 15), Council Regulation (EEC) No 2299/
      89 of 24 July 1989 on a code of conduct for computerised
      reservation systems (OJ 1989 L 220, p. 1), as amended                 3.    Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs;
      by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3089/93 of 29 October
      1993 (OJ 1993 L 278, p. 1), and Council Regulation
      (EEC) No 95/93 of 18 January 1993 on common rules                     4.    Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear its own costs.
      for the allocation of slots at Community airports (OJ
      1993 L 14, p. 1); and,
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.
—     in the alternative and, in part, in addition, a declaration
      that, in so far as the 1995 agreement cannot be regarded
      as having radically amended and thus replaced the


title: Case T-494/14: Action brought on 30 June 2014 — Klymenko v Council

text:
               1.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 292/51

         Action brought on 30 June 2014 — Klymenko v Council
   (Case T-494/14)
   2014/C 292/63
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Oleksandr Klymenko (Kyiv, Ukraine) (represented by: M. Shaw, QC, and I. Quirk, Barrister)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Decision 2014/216 and Regulation 381/2014 with immediate effect in so far as they apply to Mr Klymenko, and

               —

               order the Council to pay Mr Klymenko’s costs of this action.

      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 breach of the applicant’s rights of defence and of the right to effective judicial protection as the applicant was unaware of the investigation against him, on the basis of which he was included in the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to the contested restrictive measures, and was provided with no details of it by either the Council or the Ukrainian authorities. The applicant further alleges that he was not provided with the grounds for listing nor therefore given an opportunity to submit observations.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment of evidence as the facts show that the applicant fought corruption when he was in office in Ukraine and that he was not engaged in embezzlement of Ukrainian state funds.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging failure to state reasons, non-fulfilment of the criteria laid down in Article 1(1) of decision 2014/119 and misuse of powers as the grounds for listing the applicant are vague and non-specific. The applicant submits that the Council has therefore not shown that he falls under the criteria of Article 1(1) of Decision 2014/119, whereby his listing amounts to a misuse of powers.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the right to property and the principle of proportionality as the freeze of the applicant’s funds constitutes an unnecessary and disproportionate interference with his right to property.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) 25 April 2002 in Case C-52/00: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 85/374/EEC — Product liability — Incorrect transposition)

text:
15.6.2002                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 144/5
      accordingly to be classified as waste within the meaning of           —    by including damage of less than EUR 500 in Article 3 of
      Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste.                     Law No 98-389 of 19 May 1998 on liability for defective
                                                                                products (JORF of 21 May 1998, p. 7744);
2.    The place of storage of leftover stone, its composition and the
      fact, even if proven, that the stone does not pose any real risk to   —    by providing in Article 8 thereof that the supplier of a
      human health or the environment are not relevant criteria for              defective product is to be liable in all cases and on the
      determining whether the stone is to be regarded as waste.                  same basis as the producer, and
                                                                            —    by providing in Article 13 thereof that the producer must
                                                                                prove that he has taken appropriate steps to avert the
(1) OJ C 102 of 8.4.2000.
                                                                                consequences of a defective product in order to be able
                                                                                to rely on the grounds of exemption from liability
                                                                                provided for in Article 7(d) and (e) of Council Directive
                                                                                85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of
                                                                                the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the
                                                                                Member States concerning liability for defective products
                                                                                (OJ 1985 L 210, p. 29), the French Republic has failed to
                                                                                fulfil its obligations under Articles 9, 3(3) and 7 of the
                                                                                aforementioned directive,
                                                                            the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur),
                                                                            President of the Chamber, S. von Bahr and C. W. A. Timmer-
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                    mans, Judges; L. A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; H. von
                                                                            Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 25 April
                                                                            2002, in which it:
                            (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                            1.   Declares that
                             25 April 2002
                                                                                —      by including damage of less than EUR 500 in
                                                                                Article 1386-2 of the French Civil Code;
in Case C-52/00: Commission of the European Communi-
                      ties v French Republic (1)                                 —      by providing in the first paragraph of Article 1386-7
                                                                                thereof that the supplier of a defective product is to be
                                                                                liable in all cases and on the same basis as the producer,
                                                                                and
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Directive 85/374/EEC — Product liability — Incorrect
                              transposition)                                     —      by providing in the second paragraph of Article 1386-
                                                                                12 thereof that the producer must prove that he has taken
                                                                                appropriate steps to avert the consequences of a defective
                            (2002/C 144/07)                                             product in order to be able to rely on the grounds of
                                                                                exemption from liability provided for in Article 7(d) and
                                                                                (e) of Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985
                                                                                on the approximation of the laws, regulations and
                      (Language of the case: French)                                    administrative provisions of the Member States concerning
                                                                                liability for defective products,
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published           the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                     in the European Court Reports)                              Articles 9(b), 3(3) and 7 of the aforementioned directive;
                                                                            2.   Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
In Case C-52/00, Commission of the European Communities                     (1) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000.
(Agents: M. Patakia and B. Mongin) v French Republic (Agents:
initially K. Rispal-Bellanger and R. Loosli-Surrans, subsequently
R. Loosli-Surrans and J.-F. Dobelle): Application for a declar-
ation that:


title: Judgment of the Court of 3 August 2016 in joined Cases E-26/15 and E-27/15 — Criminal proceedings against B and B v Finanzmarktaufsicht (Freedom to provide services — Article 36 EEA — Directive 2005/60/EC — Proportionality)

text:
               13.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 120/25

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 3 August 2016
   in joined Cases E-26/15 and E-27/15
   Criminal proceedings against B and B v Finanzmarktaufsicht
   (Freedom to provide services — Article 36 EEA — Directive 2005/60/EC — Proportionality)
   (2017/C 120/13)
   In joined Cases E-26/15 and E-27/15, Criminal proceedings against B and B v Finanzmarktaufsicht — REQUESTS to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by the Princely Court of Appeal of the Principality of Liechtenstein (Fürstliches Obergericht) and the Appeals Board of the Financial Market Authority (Beschwerdekommission der Finanzmarktaufsicht) concerning the interpretation of Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 3 August 2016, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing must be interpreted as not precluding a host EEA State from making a trust and company service provider operating in its territory under the freedom to provide services subject to due diligence requirements laid down in its national legislation.

               2.

               However, in so far as such legislation gives rise to difficulties and additional costs for activities carried out under the rules governing the freedom to provide services and is liable to be additional to the controls already conducted in the home EEA State of the trust and company service provider, thus dissuading the latter from carrying out such activities, it constitutes a restriction on the freedom to provide services. Article 36 EEA must be interpreted as not precluding such legislation provided that it is applied in a non-discriminatory manner, justified by the objective of combating money laundering and terrorist financing, suitable for securing the attainment of that aim and does not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain it. In particular, for national supervisory measures of the host EEA State to be considered proportionate, there should be no general presumption of fraud, leading to full, systematic checks of all those who are established in other EEA States and provide services on a temporary basis in the host EEA State. Furthermore, the host EEA State must, when requesting information, such as documents, located in the EEA State of establishment, grant the service provider a reasonable period of time to provide that information, e.g. by handing over copies of documents. In this regard, the appropriate length of the notice will depend on the volume of documents requested and the medium on which they are stored.

               3.

               The Court’s answers to the first and second questions do not differ where the company to which administrative services are provided is not incorporated in an EEA State.


title: Case T-672/14: Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2016 — August Wolff and Remedia v Commission (Medicinal products for human use — Article 31 of Directive 2001/83/EC — Article 116 of Directive 2001/83 — Active substance estradiol — Commission decision ordering the Member States to withdraw or amend national marketing authorisations for medicinal products with 0,01 % estradiol by weight for topical use — Burden of proof — Proportionality — Equal treatment)

text:
               5.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 454/22

      Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2016 — August Wolff and Remedia v Commission
      (Case T-672/14) (1)

      ((Medicinal products for human use - Article 31 of Directive 2001/83/EC - Article 116 of Directive 2001/83 - Active substance estradiol - Commission decision ordering the Member States to withdraw or amend national marketing authorisations for medicinal products with 0,01 % estradiol by weight for topical use - Burden of proof - Proportionality - Equal treatment))
      (2016/C 454/40)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicants: Dr. August Wolff GmbH & Co. KG Arzneimittel (Bielefeld, Germany) and Remedia d.o.o (Zagreb, Croatia) (represented by: P. Klappich, C. Schmidt and P. Arbeiter, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B.-R. Killmann and A. Sipos, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 6030 final of 19 August 2014 concerning, in the framework of Article 31 of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, the marketing authorisations for high concentration of estradiol containing human medicinal products for topical use in so far as it requires Member States to comply with the obligations imposed in the implementing decision for the medicinal products listed in Annex I to the implementing decision and those not listed with 0,01 % estradiol by weight for topical use, with the exception of the restriction that the medicinal products named in Annex I to the implementing decision with 0,01 % estradiol by weight for topical use may be administered only intravaginally.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Dr. August Wolff GmbH & Co. KG Arzneimittel and Remedia d.o.o. to pay the costs of the proceedings and of those relating to the application for interim measures.

         (1)  OJ C 439, 8.12.2014.


title: Case C-58/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 7 February 2011 — France Telecom España, S.A.

text:
               7.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 139/13

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 7 February 2011 — France Telecom España, S.A.
   (Case C-58/11)
   2011/C 139/24
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Supremo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: France Telecom España, S.A.

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 13 of Directive 2002/20/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive) be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which a fee may be required for the right to install facilities on municipal public land from operating undertakings which, without being proprietors of the network, use it to provide mobile telephony services?

               2.

               In the event that the levy is found to be compatible with Article 13 of Directive 2002/20/EC, do the conditions in accordance with which the fee is required under the contested local regulation satisfy the requirements of objectivity, proportionality and non-discrimination laid down in that provision, together with the need to ensure the optimal use of the resources concerned?

               3.

               Is it appropriate to recognise Article 13 of Directive 2002/20/EC as having direct effect?

      (1)  OJ L 108, p. 21


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 22 June 2005 in Case T-171/05 R: Bart Nijs v Court of Auditors of the European Communities (Proceedings for interim relief — Officials — Suspension of operation of a measure — Admissibility)

text:
               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/44

      ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 22 June 2005
   in Case T-171/05 R: Bart Nijs v Court of Auditors of the European Communities
   (Proceedings for interim relief - Officials - Suspension of operation of a measure - Admissibility)
   (2005/C 217/96)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-171/05 R: Bart Nijs, official of the Court of Auditors of the European Communities, residing in Bereldange (Luxembourg), represented by F. Rollinger, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against the Court of Auditors of the European Communities (Agents: T. Kennedy, J.-M. Stenier and G. Corstens, with an address for service in Luxembourg): application to suspend the operation of the Court of Auditors' decision of 2 December 2004 to promote an official other than the applicant to the post of principal translator at grade LA5 in the Dutch Section of the Translation Service of the General Secretariat of the Court of Auditors — the President of the Court of First Instance made an order on 22 June 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundessozialgericht, by order of that court of 12 December 1996 in the case of Arif Altiney v. Bundesanstalt für Arbeit (Case C-91/97)

text:
No C 131 /8           EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   26 . 4 . 97
Reference      for   a       preliminary   ruling     from   the       move to another Member State, where the person has
Handelsgericht Wien by order of that court of 18 July                  worked and become habitually resident, and finally
1996 in the case of Consorzio per la Tutela del Formaggio              returns to the first Member State in order to seek work, is
Gorgonzola v. ( 1 ) Kaserei Champignon Hofmeister GmbH                 it compatible with the requirements of Article 48 of the
   & Co KG and (2 ) Eduard Bracharz Gesellschaft mbH                   Treaty of Rome for the first Member State to impose a
                        ( Case C-87/97)                                condition of habitual residence in that State ( involving the
                                                                       existence of an appreciable period of residence in that
                          ( 97/C 131/18 )                              State ) on entitlement to a general non-contributory means
                                                                       tested state benefit with the characteristics of British
                                                                       income support ?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Handelsgericht
Wien ( Commercial Court, Vienna ) of 18 July 1996, which
was received at the Court Registry on 27 February 1997,
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Consorzio per la
Tutela del Formaggio Gorgonzola v. ( 1 ) Kaserei Champi               Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
gnon Hofmeister GmbH & Co KG and ( 2 ) Eduard Bra                     Bundessozialgericht, by order of that court of 12 December
charz Gesellschaft mbH on the following questions:                     1996 in the case of Arif Altiney v. Bundesanstalt fur
                                                                                Arbeit
— Is it compatible, in the current state of Community                                          ( Case C-91 /97 )
     law, with the principles of the free movement of goods
                                                                                ( 97/C 131 /20 )
     (Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty) that a cheese
     which has been lawfully produced in a Member State
     since 1977 and designated by the name 'Cambozola',                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     and which has been marketed in another Member                     European        Communities           by    order  of        the
     State since 1983, is not permitted to be marketed in              Bundessozialgericht (Federal Social Court) of 12 December
     the latter Member State under the name 'Cambozola',               1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on
     on the basis of a national measure referring to an                3 March 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Arif
     international agreement for the protection of                     Altiney v. Bundesanstalt fur Arbeit ( Federal Employment
     geographical designations of origin and names of                  Office ) on the following question:
     certain products ( which protects the designation
     ' Gorgonzola') and referring to a national prohibition            Is a Turkish worker duly registered as belonging to the
     of misleading statements ?                                        labour force of a Member State, within the meaning of
                                                                       Article 6 ( 1 ) of Decision No 1 /80 of the EEC-Turkey
— Does it make any difference to the answer to that                    Association Council on the development of the
     question if the packaging of the cheese designated as             Association, and is he legally employed in that State, if he
     'Cambozola' bears a clearly visible indication of the             has been permitted to work only for a limited period not
     country of manufacture ('Deutscher Weichkase'), if                exceeding three years as a speciality chef in a speciality
                                                                       restaurant ?
     that cheese is as a rule not displayed and sold to
     consumers in the form of whole cheeses, but in pieces,
     sometimes without the original packaging ?
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour d'Arbitrage
                                                                       of the Kingdom of Belgium by judgment of that court of
                                                                        19 February 1997 in the case brought by Federation Beige
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Social Security              des Chambres Syndicales de Medecins concerning
Commissioner, by decision of 25 February 1997, in the                   annulment of Article 4 ( 2 ) of the Decree of the Flemish
  case of Robin Swaddling against the Adjudication Officer                               Community of 5 April 1995
                         ( Case C-90/97 )                                                       ( Case C-93/97 )
                           ( 97/C 131/19 )                                                        ( 97/C 131 /21 )
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by judgment of the Cour
European Communities by decision of the Social Security
 Commissioner of 25 February 1997, which was received
                                                                        d'Arbitrage ( Court of Arbitration ) of the Kingdom of
                                                                        Belgium of 19 February 1997, received at the Court
 at the Court Registry on 3 March 1997, for a preliminary
 ruling in the case of Robin Swaddling against the                      Registry on 3 March 1997, for a preliminary ruling on the
Adjudication Officer, on the following question:
                                                                        following questions in the case brought by Federation
                                                                        Beige des Chambres Syndicales de Medecins ( Belgian
                                                                        Federation of Doctors' Associations ) concerning
 In circumstances where a person has worked and been                    annulment of Article 4 ( 2 ) of the Decree of the Flemish
 habitually resident in one Member State, has then                      Community of 5 April 1995 , amending the Decree of
 exercised the right to freedom of movement for workers to              12 June 1991 relating to universities in the Flemish


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 January 2000 in Case C-220/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln): Estée Lauder Cosmetics GmbH & Co. OHG v Lancaster Group GmbH (Free movement of goods — Marketing of a cosmetic product whose name includes the term lifting — Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 28 EC and 30 EC)— Directive 76/768/EEC)

text:
18.3.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                                 C 79/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                            consumer, reasonably well informed and reasonably observant
                                                                                and circumspect, is misled by that name, believing it to imply
                          (Fifth Chamber)                                         that the product possesses characteristics which it does not have.
                        of 13 January 2000                                   — It is for the national court to decide, having regard to the
                                                                                presumed expectations of the average consumer, whether the
                                                                                name is misleading.
in Case C-220/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Landgericht Köln): Estée Lauder Cosmetics GmbH &                         — Community law does not preclude the national court, should it
            Co. OHG v Lancaster Group GmbH (1)                                    experience particular difficulty in deciding whether or not the
                                                                                name at issue is misleading, from commissioning, in accordance
(Free movement of goods — Marketing of a cosmetic product                         with its national law, a survey of public opinion or an expert
whose name includes the term lifting — Articles 30 and 36                         opinion for the purposes of clarification.
of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 28 EC and
                30 EC) — Directive 76/768/EEC)
                                                                             (1) JO C 258 of 15.8.1998.
                           (2000/C 79/01)
                   (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
In Case C-220/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Landgericht Köln,                                           (Fifth Chamber)
Germany, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between Estée Lauder Cosmetics GmbH &                                               of 13 January 2000
Co. OHG and Lancaster Group GmbH — on the interpretation
of Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
Articles 28 EC and 30 EC) and Article 6(3) of Council Directive              in Case C-254/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling
76/768/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws                  from the Oberster Gerichtshof): Schutzverband gegen
of the Member States relating to cosmetic products (OJ 1976                   unlauteren Wettbewerb v TK-Heimdienst Sass GmbH (1)
L 262, p. 169), as amended by Council Directive 88/667/EEC
of 21 December 1988 (OJ 1988 L 382, p. 46) and Council                       (Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
Directive 93/35/EEC of 14 June 1993 (OJ 1993 L 151, p. 32)                   Article 28 EC) — Sale on rounds of baker’s, butcher’s and
— the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward,                                  grocer’s wares — Territorial restriction)
President of the Chamber, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida (Rappor-
teur), C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet and P. Jann, Judges; N. Fen-                                         (2000/C 79/02)
nelly, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator,
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 January 2000,
in which it has ruled:                                                                          (Language of the case: German)
— Articles 30 and 36 of the Treaty (now, after amendment,
    Articles 28 EC and 30 EC) and Article 6(3) of Council Directive          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
    76/768/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws                                  in the European Court Reports)
    of the Member States relating to cosmetic products, as amended
    by Council Directive 88/667/EEC of 21 December 1988 and                  In Case C-278/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
    Council Directive 93/35/EEC of 14 June 1993, do not preclude             the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Oberster
    the application of national legislation which prohibits the              Gerichtshof, Austria, for a preliminary ruling in the proceed-
    importation and marketing of a cosmetic product whose name               ings pending before that court between Schutzverband gegen
    incorporates the term ‘lifting’ in cases where the average               unlauteren Wettbewerb and TK-Heimdienst Sass GmbH — on


title: Case C-338/15 P: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 20 July 2016 — Claire Staelen v European Ombudsman (Appeal — Non-contractual liability — Handling by the European Ombudsman of a complaint concerning the management of a list of suitable candidates following an open competition — Rules of Procedure of the Court — Article 181)

text:
               5.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 454/9

      Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 20 July 2016 — Claire Staelen v European Ombudsman
      (Case C-338/15 P) (1)

      ((Appeal - Non-contractual liability - Handling by the European Ombudsman of a complaint concerning the management of a list of suitable candidates following an open competition - Rules of Procedure of the Court - Article 181))
      (2016/C 454/19)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Appellant: Claire Staelen (represented by: V. Olona, avocate)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Ombudsman (represented: initially by G. Grill, and subsequently by L. Papadias, acting as Agents)

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  The appeal is rejected.

                  2.

                  Claire Staelen is ordered to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 January 2004 in Case C-100/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof): Gerolsteiner Brunnen GmbH & Co. v Putsch GmbH (Directive 89/104/EEC — Limitation of the effects of a trade mark in relation to indications concerning geographical origin — Use of a geographical indication as a trade mark as an element of use in accordance with "honest practices in industrial or commercial matters")

text:
C 47/8                    EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                             21.2.2004
Regulation (EC) No 241/1999 of 25 January 1999 (OJ                           interpretation of Article 6(1)(b) of First Council Directive 89/
1999 L 27, p. 1), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:                    104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of
D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), acting for the President of the                  the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40,
Fifth Chamber, A. La Pergola and P. Jann, Judges; D. Ruiz-                   p. 1), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, acting
Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has                   for the President of the Fifth Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans
given a judgment on 7 January 2004, in which it has ruled:                   and D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advo-
                                                                             cate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the
1.    Articles 2 and 11 of Council Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 of             Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 January 2004, in which
      22 December 1994 laying down measures concerning the entry             it has ruled:
      into the Community and the export and re-export from the
      Community of goods infringing certain intellectual property            Article 6(1)(b) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 Decem-
      rights, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 241/1999              ber 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to
      of 25 January 1999, are applicable to situations in which              trade marks is to be interpreted as meaning that, where there exists a
      goods in transit between two countries not belonging to the            likelihood of aural confusion between a word mark registered in one
      European Community are temporarily detained in a Member                Member State and an indication, in the course of trade, of the
      State by the customs authorities of that State.                        geographical origin of a product originating in another Member
                                                                             State, the proprietor of the trade mark may, pursuant to Article 5 of
2.    The duty to interpret national law so as to be compatible with         Directive 89/104, prevent the use of the indication of geographical
      Community law, in the light of its wording and purpose, in             origin only if that use is not in accordance with honest practices in
      order to attain the aim pursued by the latter, cannot, of itself       industrial or commercial matters. It is for the national court to carry
      and independently of a law adopted by a Member State, have             out an overall assessment of all the circumstances of the particular
      the effect of determining or aggravating the liability in criminal     case in that regard.
      law of an entity which has failed to meet the requirements of
      Regulation No 3295/94.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 144 of 15.6.2002.
(1) OJ C 131 of 1.6.2002.
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                           of 7 January 2004
                                                                                of 7 January 2004
in Case C-100/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Bundesgerichtshof): Gerolsteiner Brunnen GmbH &
                                                                             in Case C-201/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                       Co. v Putsch GmbH (1)
                                                                             the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s
                                                                             Bench Division (Administrative Court): The Queen on
(Directive 89/104/EEC — Limitation of the effects of a trade                 the application of Delena Wells v Secretary of State for
mark in relation to indications concerning geographical                            Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1)
origin — Use of a geographical indication as a trade mark
as an element of use in accordance with ‘honest practices in
                 industrial or commercial matters’)                          (Directive 85/337/EEC — Assessment of the effects of
                                                                             certain projects on the environment — National measure
                                                                             granting consent for mining operations without an environ-
                             (2004/C 47/13)
                                                                             mental impact assessment being carried out — Direct effect
                                                                                of directives Triangular situation)
                     (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (2004/C 47/14)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
In Case C-100/02: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between                  In Case C-201/02: Reference to the Court under Article 234
Gerolsteiner Brunnen GmbH & Co. and Putsch GmbH, on the                      EC by the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s


title: Case T-181/14: Action brought on 20 March 2014 — Nürburgring v OHIM — Biedermann (Nordschleife)

text:
               19.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/29

         Action brought on 20 March 2014 — Nürburgring v OHIM — Biedermann (Nordschleife)
   (Case T-181/14)
   2014/C 151/37
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Nürburgring GmbH (Nürburg, Germany) (represented by: M. Viefhues and C. Giersdorf, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lutz Biedermann (Villingen-Schwenningen, Germany)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 January 2014 in Case R 163/2013-4;

               —

               order the defendant and, if applicable, the other interested parties to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘Nordschleife’ for goods and services in Classes 2 to 4, 6, 9, 11, 12, 14, 16, 18, 21, 22, 24 to 30, 32 to 34, 39, 41 and 43 — Community trade mark application No 7 379 399

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Lutz Biedermann

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: National word mark ‘Management by Nordschleife’ for goods and services in Classes 6, 9, 16, 25, 28 and 41

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 193, 6.8.2005

text:
               20.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/38

         (2005/C 205/66)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 193, 6.8.2005

   Past publications

      OJ C 182, 23.7.2005

      OJ C 171, 9.7.2005

      OJ C 155, 25.6.2005

      OJ C 143, 11.6.2005

      OJ C 132, 28.5.2005

      OJ C 115, 14.5.2005

   These texts are available on:

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

               CELEX:http://europa.eu.int/celex


title: Case C-276/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hessisches Finanzgericht by order of that court of 21 February 2000 in the case of Turbon International GmbH against Oberfinanzdirektion Koblenz Zoll- und Verbrauchsteuerabteilung

text:
9.9.2000               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 259/9
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespa-                   Must the second paragraph of Article 288 EC (formerly the
tentgericht, by order of that court of 14 April 2000 in the             second paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty) be interpret-
    appeal proceedings brought by Dr Ralf Sieckmann                     ed as meaning that, where an application is made for an order
                                                                        requiring the Commission of the European Communities to
                         (Case C-273/00)                                participate in an expert assessment which has already been
                                                                        ordered as against the Belgian State, on the basis that the
                         (2000/C 259/15)                                assessment procedure and the expert’s final report are to be
                                                                        declared common to the parties and binding on the Com-
                                                                        mission of the European Communities; and the expert’s tasks
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  in that connection include inter alia an examination of the
European Communities by order of the Bundespatentgericht                responses and behaviour of the Commission of the European
(Federal Patents Court) of 14 April 2000, received at the Court         Communities, its bodies and employees from the time it
Registry on 10 July 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the               became aware of the dioxin contamination, and of the
appeal proceedings brought by Dr Ralf Sieckmann on the                  appropriateness of the measures taken by it and the impact
following questions:                                                    thereof on the adverse effects and damage sustained by the
                                                                        respondents; and the application in question is made with a
1.   Is Article 2 of the First Council Directive of 21 December         view to the subsequent institution of substantive proceedings
     1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States                  regarding the respective liability of the Belgian State and the
     relating to trade marks (89/104/EEC) (1) to be interpreted         European Community in respect of the dioxin crisis, that
     as meaning that the expression ‘signs capable of being             application constitutes a non-contractual liability claim over
     represented graphically’ covers only those sings which             which the Court of Justice of the European Communities,
     can be reproduced directly in their visible form or is it          alternatively the Court of First Instance of the European
     also to be construed as meaning signs — such as odours             Communities, has exclusive jurisdiction?
     or sounds — which cannot be perceived visually per se
     but can be reproduced indirectly using certain aids?
2.   If the first question is answered in terms of a broad
     interpretation, are the requirements of graphic representa-
     bility set out in Article 2 satisfied where an odour is
     reproduced
     (a)    By a chemical formula;
     (b) By a description (to be published);
     (c)    By means of a deposit, or                                   Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hessisches
                                                                        Finanzgericht by order of that court of 21 February
     (d) By a combination of the abovementioned surrogate               2000 in the case of Turbon International GmbH against
            reproductions?                                              Oberfinanzdirektion Koblenz Zoll- und Verbrauchsteuer-
                                                                                abteilung
(1) OJ L of 11 February 1989, p. 1.
                                                                                (Case C-276/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 259/17)
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van
Beroep te Gent, by order of that court of 28 June 2000                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
in the case of the European Community, acting through                   European Communities by order of the Hessisches Finanzge-
the European Commission, against (1) First N.V. and                     richt of 21 February 2000, received at the Court Registry on
                          (2) Franex N.V.                               12 July 2000, for a preliminary ruling the case of Turbon
                                                                        International GmbH against Oberfinanzdirektion Koblenz Zoll
                                                                        und Verbrauchsteuerabteilung on the following question:
                         (Case C-275/00)
                         (2000/C 259/16)
                                                                        Is a compatible ink-jet cartridge, consisting of an ink cartridge
                                                                        (plastic casing, cellular material, metal screen, seals, tape seal,
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  labels), ink and packing materials, where both the ink cartridge
European Communities by order of the Hof van Beroep te                  and the ink can be used solely in an Epson Stylos Color printer,
Gent (Court of Appeal, Ghent) of 28 June 2000, received at
the Court Registry on 12 July 2000, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of the European Community, acting through the               —     to be classified under code number 3215 90 80 as a
European Commission, against (1) First N.V. and (2) Franex                    disposable, ink-filled cartridge (without integrated print
N.V. on the following question:                                               head) for ink-jet printers
 ---pagebreak--- C 259/10               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        9.9.2000
      or                                                                2.   Article 19 of Law 2198/94 is compatible with the
                                                                             common market as it relates to the consolidation of
                                                                             interest on debts regulated by Article 32(2) of Law
—     is that compatible ink-jet cartridge a part or accessory of            2008/92 — the provision governing AGNO’s debt.
      a printer that is assigned to CN heading No 8471 as an
      essential unit of an automatic dataprocessing machine,
      and therefore covered by CN heading No 8473?
                                                                        B.   Order 1620/89 of the Governor of the Bank of Greece
                                                                        The order is compatible with the common market. Its pro-
                                                                        visions do not relate to State aid within the meaning of
                                                                        Article 87 EC.
                                                                        C.   Article 5 of Law 2237/94
Action brought on 13 July 2000 by the Hellenic Republic
   against the Commission of the European Communities                   1.   Compatibility of the provision with the common market.
                                                                             Full observance of the ‘private investor’ principle.
                         (Case C-278/00)
                                                                             (a)   The provisions of Law 2237/94 do not amount to
                                                                                aid under Article 87 EC and did not affect intra-
                         (2000/C 259/18)                                           Community trade or distort competition by accord-
                                                                                ing favourable treatment to certain undertakings.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                             (b) Even if the provisions of Law 2237/94 were to be
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                                regarded as State aid, they may be regarded as
Communities on 13 July 2000 by the Hellenic Republic,
                                                                                compatible with the common market under
represented by Ioannis G. Khalkias, Member of the State Legal
                                                                                Article 87(2)(b) or Article 87(3)(a) and (c):
Service, and Khrisoula Tsiavou, Legal Agent of the State Legal
Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Greek Embassy, 125 Val Sainte-Croix.                                               (i)   aid compatible with the common market under
                                                                                Article 87(2)(b);
The Hellenic Republic claims that the Court should:                                (ii) aid compatible with the common market under
                                                                                Article 87(3)(c).
—     allow its application;
                                                                        2.   The provisions of Law 2237/94 and of Order 1620/89
—     annul in its entirety Commission Decision E(2000) 686                  of the Governor of the Bank of Greece are inextricably
      final of 1 March 2000 relating to the aid schemes                      linked with the ‘private investor’ principle.
      implemented by Greece in order to regulate debts of
      agricultural cooperatives in the years 1992 and 1994
      including aid for the reorganisation of the dairy cooperat-
                                                                        D.   Law No 2538/97
      ive AGNO, or in the alternative annul Article 2 of that
      decision which requires the recovery with interest of the
      aid found to be unlawful.                                         1.   Council decision as to the Law’s compatibility with the
                                                                             common market.
                                                                        2.   Council Decision 14015/15.12.1998 incorporated and
Grounds for annulment and main arguments                                     legitimated all previous aid.
I.    General grounds for annulment of the                              II.  Specific grounds for annulment of the
      contested decision                                                     contested decision
A.1. Law 2008/92 is concerned with State aid which is fully             E.1. The contested decision should be annulled as infringing
      compatible with the common market because it is                        Article 88(3) EC, the principle of the protection of
      connected with a programme to make good damage                         legitimate expectations, the principle of legal certainty
      that resulted from natural disasters and exceptional                   and the principle of good administration, by reason of
      occurrences.                                                           the excessive delay with which the Commission acted.


title: Case T-297/14: Order of the General Court of 22 May 2015 — Walter Klein v Commission (State aid — Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings — Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU — Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               27.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/24

         Order of the General Court of 22 May 2015 — Walter Klein v Commission
   (Case T-297/14) (1)

   ((State aid - Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings - Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU - Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate))
   (2015/C 245/29)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Walter Klein GmbH & Co. KG (Wuppertal, Germany) (represented by: T. Volz, M. Ringel, B. Wißmann, M. Püstow, C. Oehme and T. Wielsch, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents, and by A. Luke and C. Maurer, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application to annul in part Commission decision C (2013) 4424 final of 18 December 2013 to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU regarding measures implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users (State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN)).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action.

               2.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for intervention submitted by the EFTA Surveillance Authority.

               3.

               Walter Klein GmbH & Co. KG shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures.

               4.

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.


title: Appeal brought on 14 April 1998 by Günther Bühring against the judgment delivered on 4 February 1998 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-246/93 between Günther Bühring and the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-105/98 P)

text:
C 209/18              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     4.7.98
Justice) of 5 March 1998, which was received at the Court            date of birth which results from the first information given
Registry on 9 April 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the            by the insured person to the social security institution of
case of Union Deutsche Lebensmittelwerke GmbH v.                     the Member State in question or to the employer in that
Schutzverband gegen Unwesen in der Wirtschaft e.V. on                State (in so far as he is under a duty to notify the social
the following questions:                                             security institution)?
(a) Is Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1898/
     87 (1) of 2 July 1987 on the protection of
     designations used in marketing of milk and milk
     products, read in conjunction with Article 3(2) of
     Council Directive 89/398/EEC (2) of 3 May 1989 on
                                                                     Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster
     the approximation of the laws of the Member States
                                                                     Gerichtshof by order of that court of 31 March 1998 in
     relating to foodstuffs intended for particular
                                                                     the case of Johann Buchner and 12 others v. Sozialver-
     nutritional uses, to be interpreted as meaning that a
                                                                                sicherungsanstalt der Bauern
     milk product, in which milk fat has been replaced on
     dietary grounds by vegetable fat, cannot be described                                  (Case C-104/98)
     as cheese?                                                                               (98/C 209/35)
(b) If Question (a) is answered in the affirmative, is it
     significant that the designation dietary cheese                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     (dietary soft cheese) containing vegetable oil for a fat-       European Communities by an order of the Oberster
     modified diet' is complemented by additional                    Gerichtshof (Supreme Court, Austria) of 31 March 1998,
     descriptive material on the packaging, such as this            which was received at the Court Registry on 14 April
     dietary cheese is rich in polyunsaturated fats¼' or             1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Johann
     this dietary cheese is ideal for a cholesterol-conscious       Buchner and 12 others v. Sozialversicherungsanstalt der
     lifestyle¼'?                                                    Bauern on the following questions:
(1) OJ L 182, 3.7.1987, p. 36.                                       1. Is Article 7(1)(a) of Directive 79/7/EEC (1) to be
(2) OJ L 186, 30.6.1989, p. 27.                                          interpreted as allowing Member States to determine
                                                                         different pensionable ages only for pension rights
                                                                         which are granted exclusively on the basis of the risk
                                                                         of old age, or is that derogation applicable also to
                                                                         pension rights which are granted only from a specified
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundessozial-                  age but in addition are granted only because of
gericht by order of that court of 17 February 1998 in the                invalidity (incapacity for work)?
case of Ibrahim Kocak against Landesversicherungsanstalt
               Oberfranken und Mittelfranken                         2. Is Article 7(1)(a) and (2) of Directive 79/7/EEC to the
                       (Case C-102/98)                                   interpreted as allowing a Member State to alter a
                                                                         previously existing identical provision on pensionable
                         (98/C 209/34)                                   age (in this case completion of the 55th year for men
                                                                         and women) after the end of the transposition period,
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   in such a way that a different pensionable age for men
European Communities by order of the Thirteenth Senate                   and women (in this case completion of the 57th year
of the Bundessozialgericht (Federal Social Court) of                     for men and the 55th year for women) is now
17 February 1998, received at the Court Registry on                      determined?
9 April 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Ibrahim      Kocak     against    Landesversicherungsanstalt         (1) OJ L 6, 10.1.1979, p. 24.
(Regional Insurance Office) Oberfranken und Mittel-
franken on the following question:
Is the law relating to the association between the
European Economic Community and Turkey (in particular
Article 9 of the Agreement establishing an Association
between the European Economic Community and Turkey                   Appeal brought on 14 April 1998 by Günther Bühring
of 12 September 1963, Article 37 of the Additional                   against the judgment delivered on 4 February 1998 by the
Protocol to that agreement of 23 November 1970,                      First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
Article 10 of Decision No 1/80 of the Council of                     European Communities in Case T-246/93 between
Association of 19 September 1980 and Article 3(1) of                 Günther Bühring and the Council of the European Union
Decision No 3/80 of the Council of Association of                        and the Commission of the European Communities
19 September 1980) to be interpreted as not permitting                                     (Case C-105/98 P)
the legislature of a Member State to adopt rules under                                        (98/C 209/36)
which the applicable date of birth for use in the insurance
number allocated to an insured person and for the grant
of old-age pension is in principle, in the case of Turkish           An appeal against the judgment delivered on 4 February
migrant workers also Ð without regard to particular                  1998 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance
characteristics of the Turkish register of civil status Ð the        of the European Communities in Case T-246/93 between
 ---pagebreak--- 4.7.98                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 209/19
Günther Bühring and the Council of the European Union               in Case T-189/97 between ComiteÂ d'Entreprise de la
and the Commission of the European Communities was                  SocieÂteÂ francËaise de production and Others and the
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                 Commission of the European Communities was brought
Communities on 14 April 1998 by Günther Bühring,                    before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
represented by Hagen Lichtenberg, of the University of              on 15 April 1998 by ComiteÂ d'Entreprise de la SocieÂteÂ
Bremen, D-28359 Bremen.                                             FrancËaise de Production, Syndicat National de Radio-dif-
                                                                    fusion et de TeÂleÂvision S.N.R.T. Ð C.G.T., Syndicat UnifieÂ
The appellant claims that the Court should:                         de Radio et de TeÂleÂvision S.U.R.T. Ð C.F.D.T., Syndicat
                                                                    National Force OuvrieÁre de Radio-diffusion et de TeÂleÂvi-
(a) set aside the judgment delivered on 4 February 1998             sion and Syndicat National de l'Encadrement Audiovisuel
     by the Court of First Instance in Case T-246/93 (1),           S.N.E.A. Ð C.F.E. Ð C.G.C., represented by HeÂleÁne
                                                                    Masse-Dessen, a lawyer with right of audience before the
(b) award the compensation applied              for   in  the       French Conseil d'EÂtat and Cour de Cassation, with an
     proceedings at first instance (2),                             address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                    Guy Thomas, 77 Boulevard de la Grande Duchesse
(c)  order the respondents to pay the costs.                        Charlotte.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 The applicants claim that the Court should:
The appellant contests the dismissal of his action on the           Ð admit their appeal,
ground that the five-year limitation period laid down by
Article 43 of the Statute of the Court of Justice started to        Ð set aside the contested order,
run at the point in time at which he lost his holding as a
result of its forced sale. That view of the law fails to take       Ð declare the action admissible,
account of the fact that
                                                                    Ð declare their action well-founded,
(a) he had lodged appeals before the competent national
     courts against the enforcement and the sale of the
     holding at auction. Consequently, until such time as           Ð consequently, annul Commission Decision 97/238/
     those appeals were finally and absolutely rejected, the             EC (1) of 2 October 1996,
     possibility existed that the appellant might recover
     his farm,                                                      Ð order the Commission to pay the costs and to pay
                                                                         each of the applicant organisations the sum of ECU
(b) the forced sale of the appellant's holding at auction                20 000 in respect of their costs.
     was itself a direct consequence of the damage caused,
     and cannot therefore be regarded as having                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     interrupted the continuing loss of profits suffered by
     the appellant.                                                 The finding that the recognised representatives of workers
                                                                    are not individually concerned by the decision:
(1) OJ C 94, 28.3.1998, p. 18.
(2) OJ C 166, 17.6.1993, p. 11.                                     By giving a definition of the persons individually
                                                                    concerned which was legally incorrect since it did not take
                                                                    account of the specific situation of representatives of
                                                                    workers, as required by the distinctions already made in
                                                                    the case-law, and by misconstruing the circumstances of
                                                                    the present case, the Court of First Instance wrongly held
Appeal brought on 15 April 1998 by ComiteÂ d'Entreprise             that the applicants are not individually concerned by the
de la SocieÂteÂ FrancËaise de Production, Syndicat National         contested decision.
de Radio-diffusion et de TeÂleÂvision S.N.R.T. Ð C.G.T.,
Syndicat UnifieÂ de Radio et de TeÂleÂvision S.U.R.T. Ð             The finding that the applicants are not directly concerned
C.F.D.T., Syndicat National Force OuvrieÁre de Radio-dif-           by the contested decision:
fusion et de TeÂleÂvision and Syndicat National de l'Enca-
drement Audiovisuel S.N.E.A. Ð C.F.E. Ð C.G.C. against              All the reasoning, which consists of the assertion that
the order delivered on 18 February 1998 by the Second               there is only a possibility that withdrawal of the aid might
Chamber, Extended Composition of the Court of First                 have consequences since the undertaking's decision affects
Instance of the European Communities in Case T-189/97               those consequences, is based on an incorrect analysis of
between ComiteÂ d'Entreprise de la SocieÂteÂ FrancËaise de          the decision itself, which implies and dictates those
Production and Others and the Commission of the                     consequences and of the compulsory nature of those
                   European Communities                             considerations and on a purely theoretical analysis of the
                      (Case C-106/98 P)                             economic and social situation.
                         (98/C 209/37)
                                                                    (1) Concerning aid granted by the French State to the audiovisual
                                                                        production company SocieÂteÂ FrancËaise de Production, OJ L 95,
An appeal against the order delivered on 18 February                    10.4.1997, p. 19.
1998 by the Second Chamber, Extended Composition, of
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities


title: Case C-302/14: Action brought on 24 June 2014  — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               1.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 292/19

         Action brought on 24 June 2014 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-302/14)
   2014/C 292/23
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Hetsch, O. Beynet, K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, as regards Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the energy performance of buildings (1), by failing to adopt, for some parts of its territory, the transposition provisions of the definitions in Article 2(2), (7) and (9) and the requirements laid down in Article 8(1), Article 9(1), Article 11(2) to (5), and Article 18 and Annex II or, in any event, by failing to notify those provisions to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfill its obligations under Article 28(1) of the Directive;

               —

               impose upon the Kingdom of Belgium, under Article 260(3) of the TFEU, a daily penalty of EUR 42  178,50 with effect from delivery of the judgment of the Court and payable to the European Union’s own resources account, for failure to fulfil its obligation to notify measures transposing a directive adopted under a legislative procedure;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period for transposition of Directive 2010/31/EU expired on 9 July 2012.

      (1)  OJ 2010 L 153, p. 13.


title: Action brought on 24 September 1996 by Austin Rowan against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-150/96)

text:
23 . 11 . 96          EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 354/31
The applicant maintains, in any event, that, at the time of his       22 February 1993 , despite the declaration of annulment in
recruitment, he possessed exceptional qualifications                  the abovementioned judgment.
justifying, in accordance with the judgment in Alexopoulou,
recruitment to a higher grade within the career bracket.              In support of his claims, he alleges breach of Articles 26 and
                                                                      35 of the Staff Regulations and of Articles 176 and 179 of
                                                                      the Treaty of Rome, and of general principles of law, such as
                                                                      that conferring the authority of res judicata on a final
                                                                      decision against which no appeal lies . In his view, in
                                                                      confirming a decision which had been annulled and by
                                                                      taking no notice of the conditions for complying with the
Action brought on 20 September 1996 by Ernesto Brognieri              judgment and the consequences necessarily entailed, the
  against the Commission of the European Communities                  contested decision did not comply with the operative part of
                         Case T-148/96 )                              the judgment of 8 June 1995 in Case T-583/93 P v. the
                                                                      Commission of the European Communities .
                          ( 96/C 354/61 )
                                                                      In that respect, the applicant considers that the appointing
                (Language of the case: French)                        authority did not take the contested decision in the interests
                                                                      of the service or its organization , but misused its powers in
                                                                      order to inflict a disguised disciplinary penalty on the
An action against the Commission of the European                      applicant.
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities on 20 September 1996 by Ernesto
Brognieri, residing at Barasso ( Italy ), represented by Eric         His final allegation against the defendant is that his personal
Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in         file does not contain all the documents concerning his
Luxembourg at the chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort            administrative status, since material used by the
Rheinsheim .                                                          Commission to support its case has neither been
                                                                      communicated to the applicant nor included in his personal
                                                                      file, which demonstrates the existence of a parallel file .
The applicant claims that the Court should :
— annul the decision of 28 November 1995 in which the
    appointing authority informed the applicant that it
    confirmed the decision of 22 February 1993
    withdrawing him from shift-work in the fire service and
    that he could not be reinstated in the fire station , even to     Action brought on 24 September 1996 by Austin Rowan
    work days,                                                          against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                ( Case T-l 50/96
— order the defendant to pay the applicant the sum of Lit                                       ( 96/C 354/62 )
    2 000 000 by way of compensation for non-material
    damage , together with interest at the rate prescribed by
    law of 8 % as from the date of the decision to be given                           (Language of the case: French)
    until full payment is made,
                                                                     An action against the Commission of the European
— order the defendant to pay to the applicant damages and             Communities was brought before the Court of First
    interest corresponding to the sums which he ought to              Instance of the European Communities on 24 September
    have    received  as     shift work   allowance    as   from
                                                                      1 996 by Austin Rowan, residing at Overijse , represented by
    28 November 1995 , the date of the contested decision ,          Marc-Albert Lucas , of the Liege Bar, with an address for
    until a valid and lawful decision regularizing his                service in Luxembourg at the chambers of Evelyne Korn,
    administrative situation is adopted, together with               21 Rue Nassau .
    default interest at the rate of 8 % per annum to run from
    22 February 1996 , the date on which the applicant
    lodged his complaint,                                            The applicant claims that the Court should :
— order the defendant to pay the costs .                             — annul the Commission 's decision of 25 October 1995
                                                                           inasmuch as it classifies him in Grade B 5 and, in so far as
                                                                           necessary, the Commission 's decision of 19 June 1996
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                        rejecting his complaint of 20 February 1996 ,
The applicant, who is employed by the defendant as a                 — order the defendant to pay the costs .
fireman at the Ispra Centre, is the same as in Case T-583/93 ,
which was settled by judgment of 8 June 1995 annulling the
decision of the appointing authority of 22 February 1993 ,            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
by which the applicant had been excluded from shift work in
the fire-fighting service . This action challenges the decision      The applicant, an official in Grade B 4 at the Commission,
of the defendant institution confirming the decision of              challenges the refusal of the appointing authority to review
 ---pagebreak--- No C 354/32            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      23 . 11 . 96
his classification in Grade B 5 on his recruitment to the Unit        Denis Waelbroeck and Denis Fosselard, of Liedekerke
on the Coordination of Fraud Prevention ( Uclaf).                     Wolters Waelbroeck & Kirkpatrick , with an address for
                                                                      service in Luxembourg at the chambers of Arendt &
                                                                      Medernach, 8—10 Rue Mathias Hardt.
In support of his action he claims to possess exceptional and
very specific qualifications in the fields covered by his duties .
That professional experience was acquired in the context of           The applicants claim that the Court should :
the Irish customs authorities and as a member of the
temporary staff in Uclaf at the Commission .
                                                                      — declare in accordance with Article 184 of the EC Treaty
                                                                           that Directive 96/22/EC, in so far as it prohibits the
First, he claims that the rule laid down by the Court of First             placing on the market of veterinary medicinal products
Instance in the judgment of 5 October 1995 in Case T-17/95                 containing beta-agonists for administration for
Alexopoulou has been disregarded . The applicant considers                 therapeutic purposes to farm animals, is unlawful and
that he fulfils the condition regarding special and                        therefore cannot serve as a justification for the
exceptional qualifications referred to in that judgment.                   restrictions      contained      in     Regulation       ( EC )
According to the applicant, it follows that, by not applying               No 1312/96 ,
to him the exception provided for in Article 31 ( 2 ) of the
Staff Regulations, the appointing authority committed a
manifest error of assessment .                                        — annul Regulation ( EC ) No 1312/96 in so far as it
                                                                           restricts the validity of the MRLs established for
                                                                           Clenbuterol to certain specific therapeutic purposes,
According to the applicant, the Commission merely relied                   and
on general arguments in the contested decision, namely its
own practice of recuiting to the starting grade even in
specialised fields , and on Article 27 of the Staff Regulations,      — order the Commission to bear the costs of the present
which imposes on it very high standards of recruitment,                    proceedings .
without countering any of the specific and precise
arguments he had put forward in his complaint .
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Finally, the applicant alleges breach of the duty to have
regard to the welfare of officials, inasmuch as the defendant         The application seeks the annulment of Commission
treated him unfairly by comparison with certain of his                Regulation ( EC ) No 1312/96 of 8 July 1996 ( OJ No L 170,
colleagues who, having been members of the temporary                  9 . 7. 1996 , p. 8 ) in so far as it restricts the validity of the
                                                                      maximum residue limits . ( MRLs ) which it establishes for
staff, were able to retain their grade after passing
competitions to establish them . This situation arises from           Clenbuterol hydrochloride to certain                therapeutical
the fact that the applicant devoted particular efforts to keep        indications in bovine and equine animals .
his post and therefore participated in a general competition
in 1991 , whereas competitions which were less stringent             The applicants state that the Commission has justified such
were held at the end of 1992/early 1993 to establish other            refusal exclusively by the fact that Council Directive
colleagues who , according to the applicant, had not shown            96/22/EC of 29 April 1996 ( OJ No L 125 , 23 . 5 . 1996 , p. 3 )
the same readiness .                                                  prohibits the administration of Clenbuterol to farm animals
                                                                      except for some specific therapeutic purposes in equines and
                                                                      in cows . They submit, however, that the provisions of that
                                                                      directive are contrary to EC law, as has already been shown
                                                                      in Case T-125/96 ( OJ No C 318 , 26 . 10 . 1996 , p. 15 ). They
                                                                      maintain therefore that those provisions should be declared
                                                                      inapplicable in this case .
Action brought on 2 September 1996 by Boehringer                     Accordingly, the applicants consider that the contested
Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH and C. H. Boehringer Sohn                   provisions are not substantiated by a proper statement of
Limited Partnership against the Commission of the                    reasons and that, as a result, the contested Regulation does
                     European Communities                             not comply with the requirements set out in Article 190 of
                                                                     the EC Treaty .
                        ( Case T-152/96 )
                          ( 96/C 354/63 )
                                                                     They further maintain that the provisions of the contested
                                                                      Regulation deprive them, without any valid justification, of
               (Language of the case: English)                       their right to manufacture and market most of their
                                                                     veterinary medicinal products containing Clenbuterol,
                                                                      although, in conformity with the relevant EC regulatory
An action against the Commission of the European                      requirements , they hold licences for the marketing of their
Communities was brought before the Court of First                     products .
Instance of the European Communities on 2 September
19 96 by Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH and C. H.
Boehringer Sohn Limited Partnership, represented by


title: Case T-653/13 P: Appeal brought on 6 December 2013 by Kari Wahlström against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 9 October 2013 in Case F-116/12, Wahlström v Frontex

text:
               22.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 52/38

         Appeal brought on 6 December 2013 by Kari Wahlström against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 9 October 2013 in Case F-116/12, Wahlström v Frontex
   (Case T-653/13 P)
   2014/C 52/74
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Kari Wahlström (Espoo, Finland) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex)

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 9 October 2013 dismissing its application;

               —

               grant the forms of order sought at first instance, as the appellant contends that final judgment may be given on the matter;

               —

               order the other party to the proceedings to pay the costs in their entirety.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By its appeal, the appellant seeks annulment of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (‘the CST’) dismissing its action that sought, first, annulment of the appellant’s assessment report for the year 2010 and, secondly, a claim for damages.
   In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on two pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the CST erred in law in that it found that the absence of dialogue between the assessor and the appellant in the context of the assessment for the year 2010 was a non-substantial procedural irregularity (concerning points 38 et seq. of the judgment under appeal). The appellant claims that:

                           —

                           on the one hand, the CST disregarded the existing case-law;

                           —

                           on the other hand, by basing the grounds of the judgment under appeal on the context in which the assessment report had been prepared and not solely on issue of whether holding a formal dialogue was likely to affect the procedure, the CST exceeded the margins of its judicial review by encroaching on the powers of administrative discretion.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the CST erred in law when it held that the absence of goal-setting for the first part of 2010 did not constitute a substantial procedural defect such as to call into question the validity of the assessment report in question (concerning paragraphs 50 et seq. of the judgment under appeal). The appellant claims that:

                           —

                           on the one hand, the CST disregarded the guidelines relating to assessment, insofar as those guidelines provided for the obligation to set new goals when changing the function of the agent during the reference period;

                           —

                           on the other hand, the fact that the tasks assigned to the appellant in his new role were described by reference to documents concerning the establishment and functioning of the operational office does not mean that the objectives to be achieved by the appellant in relation to those tasks had been set for him.


title: Case F-37/09: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 29 June 2010 — Doyle v European Police Office (Europol) (Staff case — Europol employees — Non-renewal of a contract — Contract of indefinite duration — Article 6 of the Staff Regulations applicable to Europol employees — Principle of respect for the rights of the defence)

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/69

      Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 29 June 2010 — Doyle v European Police Office (Europol)
      (Case F-37/09) (1)

      (Staff case - Europol employees - Non-renewal of a contract - Contract of indefinite duration - Article 6 of the Staff Regulations applicable to Europol employees - Principle of respect for the rights of the defence)
      (2010/C 288/129)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Parties

         Applicant: Margaret Doyle (Noordwijkerhout, Netherlands) (represented initially by P. de Casparis, lawyer, then by W. J. Dammingh and N. D. Dane, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Police Office (Europol) (represented by D. Neumann and D. El Khoury, agents, and by B. Wägenbaur and R. Van der Hout, lawyers)

         Re:

      Annulment of the decision of 12 June 2008 informing the applicant that it was impossible to offer her a permanent post, and the decision of 7 January 2009 rejecting the complaint brought against the first decision.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Tribunal:

                  1.

                  annuls the decision of 12 June 2008 by which the European Police Office (Europol) refused to offer to Ms Doyle a contract of indefinite duration;

                  2.

                  orders Europol to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 167, of 18.07.09., p 26