title: Case T-224/10: Action brought on 17 May 2010 — Association Belge des Consommateurs Tests-Achats v Commission

text:
               31.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/41

         Action brought on 17 May 2010 — Association Belge des Consommateurs Tests-Achats v Commission
   (Case T-224/10)
   ()
   2010/C 209/63
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Association Belge des Consommateurs Test-Achats ASBL/Belgische Verbruikersunie Test-Aankoop VZW (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: F. Filpo and A. Fratini, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Decisions No C(2009) 9059 and No C(2009) 8954, both of 12 November 2009, in Case COMP/M.5549 — EDF/SEGEBEL; and

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By means of its application, the applicant seeks, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, the annulment of the contested decisions in so far as the Commission decided not to partially refer the concentration between Electricité de France S.A. and Segebel to the Belgian Competition Authority under Article 9 of the Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) (the EC Merger Regulation) and declared the concentration compatible with the common market subject to commitments, under Article 6(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation, without initiating proceedings under Article 6(1)(c) of the Merger Regulation.
   In support of its submissions, the applicant puts forward the following pleas in law:

               In its first plea, the applicant claims that the contested decisions lack adequate statements of reason, violate Article 6(2) of the Merger Regulation, and are affected by manifest errors of evaluation, in so far as the Commission does not take adequately into account the competitive relation between the merged entity and the incumbent operator GDF Suez.

               In its second plea, the applicant claims that the Commission has infringed its procedural rights to participate in the procedure.

               In its third plea, the applicant maintains that the Commission did not have the compelling and decisive elements to conclude that the transaction would not raise serious doubts as to its compatibility with the common market, without initiating proceedings under Article 6(1)(c) of the Merger Regulation. Furthermore, the applicant claims that these defects also affect the decision not to refer the case to the Belgian Competition Authority, as the Commission did not have sufficient elements to establish whether or not it was the best placed authority to deal with the notified transaction.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings, OJ L 24, p. 1.


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 2 June 2005 in Case C-89/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State in Mediakabel BV v Commissariaat voor de Media (Directive 89/552/CEE — Article 1(a) — Television broadcasting services — Scope of application — Directive 98/34/EC — Article 1(2) — Information society services — Scope of application)

text:
               23.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/16

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Third Chamber)
   of 2 June 2005
   in Case C-89/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State in Mediakabel BV v Commissariaat voor de Media (1)

   (Directive 89/552/CEE - Article 1(a) - Television broadcasting services - Scope of application - Directive 98/34/EC - Article 1(2) - Information society services - Scope of application)
   (2005/C 182/30)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   In Case C-89/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Raad van State (Netherlands), made by decision of 18 February 2004, received at the Court on 20 February 2004, in the proceedings between Mediakabel BV and Commissariaat voor de Media — the Court (Third Chamber) composed of A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, A. Borg Barthet, J. P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), S. von Bahr and J. Malenovský, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; M. Ferreira, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 2 June 2005, in which it ruled:

               1.

               The concept of ‘television broadcasting’ referred to in Article 1(a) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities, as amended by Directive 97/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997, is defined independently by that provision. It is not defined by opposition to the concept of ‘information society service’ within the meaning of Article 1(2) of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on information society services, as amended by Directive 98/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 July 1998, and therefore does not necessarily cover services which are not covered by the latter concept.

               2.

               A service comes within the concept of ‘television broadcasting’ referred to in Article 1(a) of Directive 89/552, as amended by Directive 97/36, if it consists of the initial transmission of television programmes intended for reception by the public, that is, an indeterminate number of potential television viewers, to whom the same images are transmitted simultaneously. The manner in which the images are transmitted is not a determining element in that assessment.

               3.

               A service such as Filmtime, which consists of broadcasting television programmes intended for reception by the public and which is not provided at the individual request of a recipient of services, is a television broadcasting service within the meaning of Article 1(a) of Directive 89/552, as amended by Directive 97/36. Priority is to be given to the standpoint of the service provider in the analysis of the concept of ‘television broadcasting service’. However, the situation of services which compete with the service in question is not relevant for that assessment.

               4.

               The conditions in which the provider of a service such as Filmtime complies with the obligation referred to in Article 4(1) of Directive 89/552, as amended by Directive 97/36, to reserve for European works a majority proportion of his transmission time are irrelevant for the classification of that service as a television broadcasting service.

      (1)  OJ C 94 of 17.04.2004.


title: Case T-185/02: Action brought on 13 June 2002 by Succession Picasso against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

text:
C 202/34               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     24.8.2002
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             Action brought on 13 June 2002 by Succession Picasso
                                                                        against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
—     annul the decisions of 22.3.02 of the OHIM’s First Board                                      Market
      of Appeal in Case 115/2000-1 and 15.11.99 of the
      OHIM’s Opposition Division;                                                               (Case T-185/02)
—     allow registration of Community Trade Mark No 557108
      ‘mundicolor’ to proceed in respect of all services in                                     (2002/C 202/56)
      Class 39 ‘transport services and travel arrangements’
      and Class 42 ‘providing of food and drink; temporary                                (Language of the case: English)
      accommodation’;
—     order the opponent(s) to pay the costs.
                                                                        An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                        Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 13 June 2002 by Succession
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         Picasso, represented by Charles Gielen, lawyer. A further
                                                                        party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal was
                                                                        DaimlerChrysler AG (Intellectual Property Management).
Applicant for the Com-        The applicant.
munity trade mark:                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
Community trade mark          Word mark MUNDICOR (appli-                —     annul the Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of
applied for:                  cation published in Community                   18 March 2002 and of the Opposition Division of
                              Trade Mark Bulletin No 27/98,                   11 January 2001;
                              p. 600 of 14 April 1998) for
                              goods in 42 classes of the                —     declare that the opposition filed by the applicant against
                              nomenclature.                                   the application for registration of the mark PICARO is
                                                                              successful and refuse the application for the mark in its
Owner of the mark or          IBERIA Lı́neas Aéreas de España                entirety and/or make any other order that the Court
sign relied on in the         S.A.                                            deems fit;
opposition proceedings:
                                                                        —     order DaimlerChrysler to pay all costs of the proceedings.
Mark or sign opposed:         Spanish word mark MUNDICO-
                              LOR for goods in Class 39 (pass-
                              enger transport services, excur-
                              sions and tourist promotions) and         Pleas in law and main arguments
                              42 (hotel accommodation ser-
                              vices, travel arrangements and
                              organisation of holidays).
                              Mixed international mark MUNDI            Applicant for the Com-       DaimlerChrysler
                              COLOR, extended to France, Italy,         munity trade mark:
                              Austria and the Benelux countries
                              for ‘travel planning services and         The Community trade          Word mark ‘PICARO’ — Appli-
                              organisation of travel’ in Class 39       mark sought:                 cation No 927764, relating to
                              and ‘services involving hotel                                          goods in Class 12 (vehicles and
                              accommodation and food’ in                                             parts thereof).
                              Class 42.
                                                                        Proprietor of the trade      Succession Picasso.
Decision of the oppo-         Application allowed.                      mark or sign right cited
sition division:                                                        in the opposition pro-
                                                                        ceedings:
Decision of the Board of      Dismissal of the appeal brought
Appeal:                       by El Corte Inglés S.A.                   Trade mark or sign right     The word mark ‘PICASSO’ (Com-
                                                                        cited in the opposition      munity trade mark registration
                                                                        proceedings:                 No 614567).
Grounds relied on:            Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b)
                              of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (like-
                                                                        Decision of the Oppo-        Decision of the Board of Appeal:
                              lihood of confusion).
                                                                        sition Division:Rejection
                                                                        of the opposition.
                                                                        Dismissal of the appeal.     Grounds of claim:
 ---pagebreak--- 24.8.2002             EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 202/35
Incorrect application of       likelihood of confusion exists              Mark invoked in the           International mark No 516269
Article 8(1)(b) of Regu-       because of the undisputed identity          opposition proceedings:       ‘Roberto’ for goods in Classes 29
lation No 40/94:               or, at least, similarity of the goods,                                    and 30 and the opponent’s trading
                               the visual and phonetic similarity                                        name ‘ROBERTO’
                               of the marks and the inherent
                               distinctiveness of the mark cited           Decision of the oppo-         Dismissal of the opposition
                               in opposition.                              sition division:
                                                                           Decision of the Board of      Annulment of the decision of the
                                                                           Appeal:                       opposition division and remittal
                                                                                of the application
                                                                           Pleas in law relied on:       —     Infringement of Rule 16 of
                                                                                Regulation (EC) No 2868/
                                                                                95 (1);
Action brought on 17 June 2002 by Freiberger Lebensmit-
tel GmbH & Co. Produktions- und Vertriebs KG against                                                     —     Infringement               of
the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market                                                            Article 42(1), in conjunction
                  (Trade Marks and Designs)                                                                    with Article 8(2) and (4),
                                                                                of Regulation (EC) No 40/
                                                                                94 (2).
                        (Case T-188/02)
                        (2002/C 202/57)                                    (1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December
                                                                               1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the
                                                                               Community trade mark (OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1).
(Language of the case to be determined in accordance with                  (2) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
Article 131(2) of the Rules of Procedure Language in which the                 Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
                  application was made: German)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
17 June 2002 by Freiberger Lebensmittel GmbH & Co.
Produktions- und Vertriebs KG, of Berlin, Germany, represent-              Action brought on 17 June 2002 by Anita Jannice Öster-
ed by K.-D. Rathke. Roberto S.A. of Chevilly, France, was an                holm against Commission of the European Communities
additional party before the Board of Appeal.
                                                                                (Case T-190/02)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (2002/C 202/58)
—     annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the
      Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of                                      (Language of the case: French)
      28.2.2002 in Case R 1155/2000-4;
—     order the opponent to pay the costs.
                                                                           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities on 17 June 2002 by Anita Jannice
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            Österholm, residing in Stockholm, represented by Juan Ramon
                                                                           Iturriagagoitia Bassas, lawyer.
Applicant for the Com-         The applicant
munity trade mark:                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
Trade mark applied for:        Word mark ‘Alberto’ for goods in            —     annul the decision of the appointing authority of
                               Classes 29 and 30 — Application                   11 March 2002 replying to complaint No 389/01 lodged
                               No 26211                                          by J. Österholm;
Proprietor of the trade        Roberto S.A.                                —     annul in part the decision of the Directorate General for
mark right invoked in                                                            Personnel and Administration of the European Com-
the opposition proceed-                                                          mission of 2 July 2001 concerning the computation of
ings:                                                                            annual leave between 8 and 31 July 2000;


title: Case C-25/01 P: Appeal brought on 19 January 2001 by Compagnie Continentale (France) against the judgment delivered on 8 November 2000 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Cases T-494/93 and T-61/98 between Compagnie Continentale (France) and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
7.4.2001               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 108/5
      —      the Court of First Instance displayed an incorrect         —     refer the application for damages back to the Court of
             conception of the law by incorrectly weighing the                First Instance in order for the case to be argued and for
             evidence adduced with regard to free competition.                that application to be allowed;
             The Court of First Instance should have found that
             the Commission had obtained evidence of 7 written          —     order the Commission to pay the costs of the present
             offers and that 5 of those 7 offers led to the                   action and all the costs incurred by the appellant.
             conclusion of separate contracts.
—     Infringement of Article 68(1) of the Rules of Procedure           Pleas in law and main arguments
      of the Court of First Instance, on account of the failure
      by that Court to take evidence of its own motion from             The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in
      witnesses.                                                        Case C-24/01 P (1).
—     The Court of First Instance should have awarded the
                                                                        (1) See p. 4 of this Official Journal.
      damages applied for, and the case should therefore be
      referred back to the Court of First Instance for further
      consideration; alternatively, the Court of Justice should
      itself award those damages to the appellant.
(1) OJ 1991 L 362, p. 89.
(2) OJ 1992 L 191, p. 22.                                               Action brought on 24 January 2001 by the Commission of
                                                                        the European Communities against the United Kingdom
                                                                                (Case C-30/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 108/08)
                                                                        An action against the United Kingdom was brought before the
Appeal brought on 19 January 2001 by Compagnie                          Court of Justice of the European Communities on 24 January
Continentale (France) against the judgment delivered on                 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
8 November 2000 by the Second Chamber of the Court                      represented by Mr R. Wainwright, acting as Agent, with an
of First Instance of the European Communities in Cases                  address for service in Luxembourg.
T-494/93 and T-61/98 between Compagnie Continentale
(France) and the Commission of the European Communi-                    The Applicant claims that the Court should:
                                ties
                                                                        —     declare that, by failing in respect of Gibraltar to adopt the
                        (Case C-25/01 P)                                      laws, regulations or administrative provisions necessary
                                                                              to comply with Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June
                                                                              1967 on the approximation of laws, regulations and
                         (2001/C 108/07)                                      administrative provisions in relation to the classification,
                                                                              packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (1) as
                                                                              amended by Directive 88/302/EEC (2), Directive
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 8 November                        91/410/EEC (3), Directive 92/32/EEC (4), Directive 92/69/
2000 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of                  EEC (5), Directive 93/21/EEC (6), Directive 93/67/EEC (7)
the European Communities in Joined Cases T-485/93,                            Directive 93/72/EEC (8), Directive 93/101/EC (9), Directive
T-491/93, T-494/93 and T-61/98 between L. Dreyfus & Cie                       93/105/EC (10), Directive 94/69/EC (11), Directive 96/54/
S.A., Glencore Grain Ltd, Compagnie Continentale (France)                     EC (12) and Directive 97/69/EC (13), Council Directive
and the Commission of the European Communities was                            87/18/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the harmonisation
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-                  of the laws, regulations and administrative practice
ties on 19 January 2001 by Compagnie Continentale (France),                   relating to the application of good laboratory practice
represented by P.V.F. Bos and P. Chabrier, with an address for                and verification of their application for tests on chemical
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of M. Loesch, 4 Rue                     substances (14), Council Directive 93/12/EEC of 23 March
Carlo Hammer.                                                                 1993 relating to the sulphur content of certain liquid
                                                                              fuels (15) as amended by Directive 98/70/EC (16), Council
The appellant claims that the Court should:                                   Directive 79/113/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the
                                                                              approximation of the laws in the Member States relating
                                                                              to the determination of the noise emission of construction
—     set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of                plant and equipment (17) as amended by Directive
      8 November 2000;                                                        81/1051/EEC (18) and Directive 85/405/EEC(19), Council
                                                                              Directive 84/533/EEC of 17 September 1984 on the
—     annul the Commission’s decision of 1 April 1993;                        approximation of the laws in the Member States relating


title: Case T-226/05: Action brought on 14 June 2005 by Dimitra Lantzoni against the Court of Justice of the European Communities

text:
               20.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/28

         Action brought on 14 June 2005 by Dimitra Lantzoni against the Court of Justice of the European Communities
   (Case T-226/05)
   (2005/C 205/51)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Court of Justice of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 14 June 2005 by Dimitra Lantzoni, residing in Luxembourg, represented by Michèle Bouché, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               order the Court of Justice to pay EUR 50 000 as compensation for the non-material loss suffered by the applicant as a result of serious irregularities that have led to the blocking of her career;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   On 3 June 2004 the applicant, an official of the Court of Justice, lodged a claim for compensation for the material and non-material loss that she alleges she has suffered as a result of the blocking of her career since the new promotion system was introduced in 2000. Both that claim and her complaint having been rejected, the applicant has brought this action. In support of her heads of claim, she argues that the alleged blocking of her career, and also the material and non-material loss that she has allegedly suffered, are due to serious and repeated irregularities and failures to act on the part of the Court's administration, as regards both her staff reports and the number of promotion points awarded on that basis.


title: Case T-247/05: Action brought on 4 July 2005 by The Black & Decker Corporation against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/48

         Action brought on 4 July 2005 by The Black & Decker Corporation against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case T-247/05)
   (2005/C 217/103)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 4 July 2005 by The Black & Decker Corporation, established in Towson, Maryland (USA), represented by P. Harris, Solicitor.
   Atlas Copco Aktiebolag established in Stockholm (Sweden), was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision of the First Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 27 April 2005 (Case R 724/2004-1);

               —

               declare opposition proceedings B497 109 inadmissible;

               —

               order that the costs occasioned by the applicant in the course of the present proceedings and its appeal be borne by the OHIM.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

               Applicant for Community trade mark:

               The applicant

               Community trade mark concerned:

               Colour three-dimensional mark in black and yellow, in the form of a tool for goods in Class 7 (manually operated portable electric power tools etc.)

               Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

               Atlas Copco Aktiebolag

               Trade mark or sign cited in opposition:

               Non-registered trade marks and signs, used in the course of trade in all Member States for power tools

               Decision of the Opposition Division:

               Rejects opposition as inadmissible

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Annuls the contested decision and remits the case to the Opposition Division for further prosecution

               Pleas in law:

               The applicant claims that the opposition should have been declared inadmissible as it did not identify sufficiently clearly the earlier marks and signs relied on, in violation of Rule 18(1) of Regulation No. 2868/1995 (1).

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, OJ L 303, 15/12/1995, p. 1


title: Case C-353/10: Order of the President of the Court of 22 November 2010 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

text:
               19.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/13

         Order of the President of the Court of 22 November 2010 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-353/10) (1)

   2011/C 89/28
   Language of the case: Greek
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 246, 11.9.2010.


title: Case C-405/99: Action brought on 22 October 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium

text:
C 20/10                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       22.1.2000
— misuse of powers inasmuch as the suspension order                         of Directive 96/54/EC expired on 31 March 1998 and the
     was based on grounds other than those laid down in                     Kingdom of Belgium had not adopted the necessary measures
     Article 88(3) EC;                                                      to comply with the amendments to Annexes I and III to
                                                                            Directive 67/548/EEC.
— declaration that the aid existed and was unlawful vitiated
     by uncertainty and lacks investigation and a statement of
     reasons. No reference to facts.
                                                                            (1) OJ L 248 of 30.9.1996, p. 1.
(1) SG(99)D6463 on the opening of the formal inquiry into aid
    granted by the Italian Republic to undertakings belonging to the
    Tirrenia di Navigazione, in so far as it suspends such aid which it
    declares unlawful.
(2) OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1.
                                                                            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the, Austria, by
                                                                            order of that court of 22 September 1999 in the cases of:
                                                                            1. Metropol Treuhand WirtschaftstreuhandgmbH against
                                                                            Finanzlandesdirektion für Steiermark and 2. Michael
                                                                                Stadler against Finanzlandesdirektion für Vorarlberg
Action brought on 22 October 1999 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                               Belgium                                                               (Case C-409/99)
                           (Case C-405/99)                                                            (2000/C 20/20)
                            (2000/C 20/19)                                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                            European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgerichts-
                                                                            hof (Administrative Court), Austria of 22 September 1999
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought                        received at the Court Registry on 26 October 1999, for a
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                     preliminary ruling in the cases of: 1. Metropol Treuhand
on 22 October 1999 by the Commission of the European                        WirtschaftstreuhandgmbH against Finanzlandesdirektion für
Communities, represented by Götz zur Hausen, Legal Adviser,                 Steiermark and 2. Michael Stadler against Finanzlandesdirek-
acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at               tion für Vorarlberg on the following question:
the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service,
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                            1. Is subparagraph 2 of Article 17(6) of Sixth Council Direc-
                                                                                tive 77/388/EEC (1) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation
The Commission claims that the Court should:                                     of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes
                                                                                to be interpreted as precluding a Member State from
— Declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations                    excluding the right to deduct input tax in respect of certain
     and administrative provisions necessary to comply with                      vehicles after the entry into force of the directive, if before
     Commission Directive 96/54/EC of 30 July 1996 adapting                      its entry into force input tax was deductible in respect of
     to technical progress for the twenty-second time Council                    those vehicles by virtue of the administrative authorities’
     Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of the laws,                      actual practice?
     regulations and administrative provisions relating to the
     classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous sub-              2. If the answer to Question 1 is yes, is the first sentence of
     stances, (1) in particular Article 1(1) and (2) and Article 2(1)            Article 17(1) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of
     thereof, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its                    17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the
     obligations under that directive;                                           Member States relating to turnover taxes to be interpreted
                                                                                as meaning that a Member State may, without prior
— Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.                                 consultation under Article 29 of the directive, add to the
                                                                                exclusions from the right to deduct input tax in the manner
                                                                                described in Question 1 in order to consolidate the budget?
Pleas in law and main arguments
It follows from the binding nature of directives, laid down in              (1) OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.
the third paragraph of Article 249 and the first paragraph of
Article 10 EC, that Member States to which directives are
addressed are obliged to achieve the results provided for within
the periods prescribed. The period prescribed by Article 2(1)


title: Case C-266/09: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven — Netherlands) — Stichting Natuur en Milieu, Vereniging Milieudefensie, Vereniging Goede Waar & Co. v College voor de toelating van gewasbeschermingsmiddelen en biociden, formerly College voor de toelating van bestrijdingsmiddelen (Environment — Plant protection products — Directive 91/414/EEC — Public access to information — Directives 90/313/EEC and 2003/4/EC — Temporal application — Concept of environmental information — Confidentiality of commercial and industrial information)

text:
               19.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/8

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven — Netherlands) — Stichting Natuur en Milieu, Vereniging Milieudefensie, Vereniging Goede Waar & Co. v College voor de toelating van gewasbeschermingsmiddelen en biociden, formerly College voor de toelating van bestrijdingsmiddelen
   (Case C-266/09) (1)

   (Environment - Plant protection products - Directive 91/414/EEC - Public access to information - Directives 90/313/EEC and 2003/4/EC - Temporal application - Concept of environmental information - Confidentiality of commercial and industrial information)
   2011/C 55/13
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Stichting Natuur en Milieu, Vereniging Milieudefensie, Vereniging Goede Waar & Co.

      Defendant: College voor de toelating van gewasbeschermingsmiddelen en biociden, formerly College voor de toelating van bestrijdingsmiddelen

      Other parties: Bayer CropScience BV, Nederlandse Stichting voor Fytofarmacie

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) — Interpretation of Article 14 of Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ 1991 L 230, p. 1) and Articles 2 and 4 of Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC (OJ 2003 L 41, p. 26) — Information communicated to the national authorities within the framework of a procedure for the authorisation of a plant protection product, enabling the determination of the maximum quantity of a pesticide, a component thereof or reaction products which may be present in food or beverages — Confidentiality and public interest

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The term ‘environmental information’ in Article 2 of Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC must be interpreted as including information submitted within the framework of a national procedure for the authorisation or the extension of the authorisation of a plant protection product with a view to setting the maximum quantity of a pesticide, a component thereof or reaction products which may be present in food or beverages.

               2.

               Provided that a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings is not one of those listed in the second paragraph of Article 14 of Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, the first paragraph of Article 14 of that directive must be interpreted as being capable of application only in so far as the obligations under Article 4(2) of Directive 2003/4 are not affected.

               3.

               Article 4 of Directive 2003/4 must be interpreted as meaning that the balancing exercise it prescribes between the public interest served by the disclosure of environmental information and the specific interest served by a refusal to disclose must be carried out in each individual case submitted to the competent authorities, even if the national legislature were by a general provision to determine criteria to facilitate that comparative assessment of the interests involved.

      (1)  OJ C 267, 7.11.2009.


               9.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/1

         (2008/C 37/01)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 22, 26.1.2008

   Past publications

      OJ C 8, 12.1.2008

      OJ C 315, 22.12.2007

      OJ C 297, 8.12.2007

      OJ C 283, 24.11.2007

      OJ C 269, 10.11.2007

      OJ C 247, 20.10.2007

   These texts are available on:

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


title: Appeal brought on 17 April 1998 by Pharos SA against the judgment delivered on 17 February 1998 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-105/96 between Pharos SA and Commission of the European Communities (Case C-151/98 P)

text:
4.7.98              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 209/21
Granollers A.I.E. (Rec. 08/3276/96 and 08/3277/96),                 E and the Economic and Social Committee was brought
(C-131/98) Alfonso Crespo Recasens (Rec. 08/1826/96),               before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
(C-132/98) JesuÂs Corral García (Rec. 08/11628/95),                 on 17 April 1998 by the Economic and Social Committee,
(C-133/98) Atlansport, S.L. (Rec. 2.181/96), (C-134/98)             represented by MoiseÂs Bermejo Garde, acting as Agent,
Golden Meetings, S.A. (Rec. 08/2328/97) (C-135/98)                  with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
Algavame, S.A. (Rec. 08/2249/97), (C-136/98) Tarragona              Carlos GomeÂz de la Cruz, Commission of the European
161. S.A. (Rec. 08/994/97), (C-137/98) Gesba, S.A. (Rec.            Communities, Wagner Centre.
08/940/97), (C-138/98) Estació de Servei El Trevol S.L.
(Rec. 08/805/97), (C-139/98) Viladases, S.L. (Rec. 08/              The appellant claims that the Court should:
12845/96), (C-140/98) Francisca Quesada Cobo (Rec. 08/
7575/94), (C-141/98) Niteo, S.L. (Rec. 25/1110/96),                 Ð    set aside the judgment delivered by the Court of First
(C-142/98) Inmobiliaria Vilassarenca, S.A. (Rec. 08/2365/                Instance on 17 February 1998 in Case T-183/96 (1),
97), (C-143/98) Covives CB (Rec. 43/530/96), (C-144/98)
Cable I Televisión de Catalunya, S.A. (Rec. 10.349/96),             Ð    itself definitively determine the dispute by:
(C-145/98) Inmobiliaria Moragas, S.A. (Rec. 10.348/96),
(C-146/98) Comunidad de propietarios del Complejo                        Ð upholding the submissions advanced by the
Urbanístico de las Calles Estudiantes, Brosa y Casas i                        Economic and Social Committee in the
Amigo de Barcelona (Rec. 15.158/94), of 30 January 1998                       proceedings at first instance contending that E's
in the cases of (C-121/98) Sanyo Energy Spain Corporate,                      application should be dismissed in its entirety,
S.A. (Rec. 08/762/97), (C-122/98) Golf de Viladecans,
S.A. (Rec. ac. 08/3301/97 and 08/3302/97), (C-123/98)                    Ð ordering the parties to bear their own costs.
Savigi    89,    S.A.    (Rec.     08/665/97),     (C-124/98)
Explotaciones la Sota, S.L. (Rec. 08/960/97) and (C-147/            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
98) Bungy Fun Germany, GBDR (Rec. 43/1047/95), and
of 25 February 1998 in the cases of (C-116/98) Gran Vía             Erroneous assessment of the legal nature of the facts and
Zaragoza, S.A. (Rec. ac. 08/10942/96 and 08/11959/96),              misinterpretation of Articles 12 and 21 of the Staff
(C-118/98) Gran Vía Zaragoza, S.A. (Rec. ac. 08/10944/              Regulations of officials of the European Communities: in
96 and 08/11961/96) and (C-119/98) Gran Vía Zaragoza,               the Economic and Social Committee's view, the words
S.A. (Rec. ac. 08/10943 y 08/11960) v. Administración               used by E, and the tone in which they were expressed, as
Estatal de la Agencia Tributaria, on the following                  sanctioned in the contested decision, cannot be
question:                                                           characterised in law as merely discourteous Ð as they
                                                                    were by the Court of First Instance Ð but must be
With respect to the VAT paid by a taxable person liable             regarded as an extremely serious act amounting to a
thereto before he starts regularly carrying out taxable             failure to respect the law applicable to the public service.
transactions, may the terms in which the right to deduct
VAT is defined in Article 17 of the Sixth Council Directive         Failure to state the grounds of the judgment and
77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 be interpreted as meaning                 misinterpretation of Articles 86 and 87 of the Staff
that the exercise of that right may be made conditional,            Regulations of officials: the finding by the Court of First
with a view to avoiding fraud, upon the fulfilment of               Instance that the disciplinary measure was manifestly
certain requirements such as the submission of an express           disproportionate was based solely on the actual conduct
request before the tax concerned becomes due and                    specifically complained of, and failed to take account of
commencement of taxable transactions on a regular basis             the other circumstances of the case, that is to say, it failed
within a specified time-limit reckoned from the date of             to attach any weight in the proceedings to the other
that request, the penalty for infringement of those                 circumstances prevailing.
requirements being forfeiture of the right to deduct or, at
least, deferment of its availability until the time at which        Incorrect application of the principle of proportionality
taxable transactions begin to be carried out on a regular           and misinterpretation of Articles 12 and 21 of the Staff
basis?                                                              Regulations of officials.
                                                                    (1) OJ C 94, 28.3.1998, p. 22.
Appeal brought on 17 April 1998 by the Economic and
Social Committee against the judgment delivered on
17 February 1998 by the Third Chamber of the Court of               Appeal brought on 17 April 1998 by Pharos SA against
First Instance of the European Communities in Case                  the judgment delivered on 17 February 1998 by the Third
T-183/96 between E and the Economic and Social                      Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                         Committee                                  Communities in Case T-105/96 between Pharos SA and
                     (Case C-150/98 P)                                       Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case C-151/98 P)
                       (98/C 209/41)
                                                                                (98/C 209/42)
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 17 February
1998 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance            An appeal against the judgment delivered on 17 February
of the European Communities in Case T-183/96 between                1998 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance
 ---pagebreak--- C 209/22               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      4.7.98
of the European Communities in Case T-105/96 between                 Ð the finding of the Court of First Instance that the
Pharos SA and Commission of the European Communities                     Commission was entitled to seek a further opinion
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                  from the Committee for Veterinary Medicinal
Communities on 17 April 1998 by Pharos SA, represented                   Products: the procedure provided for by Articles 6 and
by Alexandre Vandencasteele, of the Brussels Bar, with an                8 of the regulation is clear, precise and unconditional.
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                     It examines all possible situations exhaustively and
Ernest Arendt, 8Ð10 Rue Mathias Hardt.                                   leaves the Commission no room to act otherwise than
                                                                         as laid down by the regulation.
The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                     (1) OJ L 224, 18.8.1990, p. 1.
Ð set aside the judgment of the Third Chamber of the
    Court of First Instance of the European Communities
    of 17 February 1998 in Case T-105/96 between Pharos
    SA and the Commission of the European
    Communities;                                                     Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der
                                                                     Nederlanden of 22 April 1998 in the case of
                                                                     Staatssecretaris van FinancieÈn against V.O.F. Coffeeshop
and
                                                                                SiberieÈ'
                                                                                (Case C-158/98)
Ð declare that the case should proceed to judgment and
    give judgment for the applicant in the terms sought by                                    (98/C 209/43)
    it at first instance, that is to say:
                                                                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    Ð declare that, in breach of its obligations, the                European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad
         Commission failed to pursue the procedure for the           der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) of
         inclusion of somatosalm produced by the applicant           22 April 1998, received at the Court Registry on 24 April
         in the list of substances not subject to an MRL in          1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
         Annex II of Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 (1),                Staatssecretaris van FinancieÈn against V.O.F. Coffeeshop
                                                                     SiberieÈ', on the following question:
    Ð order the Commission to pay the applicant
         damages provisionally estimated at BFR 512                  Must Article 2 of the Sixth Directive (77/388/EEC) (1)
         million or, at least, and again provisionally, at BFR       therefore be interpreted as meaning that no liability to
         353 million,                                                turnover tax arises in respect of a person who, for
                                                                     consideration, offers another person the opportunity to
    Ð order the defendant to pay the costs both of the               deal in cannabis products?
         proceedings before the Court of First Instance and
         of those before the Court of Justice;                       (1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.
or
    Ð refer the case back to the Court of First Instance
         so that it can give judgment.                               Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Ufficio del
                                                                     Giudice di Pace di Genova, by order of that court of
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                  28 March 1998 in the case of Eridania SpA against
                                                                                Azienda Agricola San Luca
                                                                                (Case C-160/98)
Errors in law as regards
                                                                                (98/C 209/44)
Ð the finding of the Court of First Instance that the
    Commission did not breach the principles of legal                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    certainty and legitimate expectations in not proposing           European Communities by order of 28 March 1998 of the
    measures to the Council as required by Article 8(3)(b)           Ufficio del Giudice di Pace di Genova, received at the
    of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 for 11                    Court Registry on 22 April 1998, for a preliminary ruling
    months because the expression without delay' used in            in the case of Eridania SpA v. Azienda Agricola San Luca
    that regulation allowed it a certain margin for                 on the following questions:
    manoeuvre': both the expressions used in the various
    language versions and the general scheme of the                  1. Is Regulation (EC) No 1188/97 of 25 June 1997 (1), in
    regulation support the view that the Commission has                  particular Article 1(f) thereof, valid, especially in the
    no deadline by which it must propose measures to the                 light of Article 3(4) and (5) of Regulation (EEC)
    Council regarding a new pharmacologically active                     No 1785/81 (2) and Article 190 of the EC Treaty?
    substance which, as such, does not benefit from the
    provisional authorisation provided for in Article 14 of          2. If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative,
    the regulation,                                                      is Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 of 30 June 1981, as


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of  20 October 2005  in Case C-505/04: Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2001/19/EC — Mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other qualifications — Nurse, dental practitioner, veterinary surgeon, midwife, architect, pharmacist and doctor — Failure to transpose within the period prescribed — Gibraltar)

text:
               10.12.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/7

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Sixth Chamber)
   of 20 October 2005
   in Case C-505/04: Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2001/19/EC - Mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other qualifications - Nurse, dental practitioner, veterinary surgeon, midwife, architect, pharmacist and doctor - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed - Gibraltar)
   (2005/C 315/12)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case C-505/04, Commission of the European Communities (Agent: H. Støvlbæk) v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent: S. Nwaokolo) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 8 December 2004 — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of J.-P. Puissochet, acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber, President of the Chamber, S. von Bahr and A. Borg Barthet (Rapporteur), Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 20 October 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, so far as Gibraltar is concerned, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2001 amending Council Directives 89/48/EEC and 92/51/EEC on the general system for the recognition of professional qualifications and Council Directives 77/452/EEC, 77/453/EEC, 78/686/EEC, 78/687/EEC, 78/1026/EEC, 78/1027/EEC, 80/154/EEC, 80/155/EEC, 85/384/EEC, 85/432/EEC, 85/433/EEC and 93/16/EEC concerning the professions of nurse responsible for general care, dental practitioner, veterinary surgeon, midwife, architect, pharmacist and doctor, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 31, 05.02.2005.


title: Case C-624/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vilniaus apygardos administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 23 November 2015 — Litdana UAB v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/19

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vilniaus apygardos administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 23 November 2015 — Litdana UAB v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos
   (Case C-624/15)
   (2016/C 048/26)
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Referring court

   Vilniaus apygardos administracinis teismas

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Litdana UAB

      Defendant: Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

      Questions referred

               1.

               Under Articles 314(a) and 226(11) of Directive 2006/112 (1) and under Articles 314(d) and 226(14) of that directive, are national rules and/or national practice founded on those rules allowed that prevent a taxable person from applying the VAT margin scheme because it becomes apparent upon a tax inspection carried out by the tax authority that incorrect information/data on the application of the VAT margin scheme and/or on exemption from VAT was provided in the VAT invoices for the goods supplied, but the taxable person did not know and could not have known about that?

               2.

               Is Article 314 of Directive 2006/112 to be understood and interpreted as meaning that, although the VAT invoice states that the goods are exempt from VAT (Article 226(11) of Directive 2006/112) and/or the seller has applied the margin scheme in order to supply the goods (Article 226(14) of Directive 2006/112), the taxable person acquires the right to apply the VAT margin scheme only when the supplier of the goods actually applies the margin scheme and duly discharges his obligations in the sphere of payment of VAT (pays VAT on the margin in his State)?

      (1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).


title: Case T-415/16: Action brought on 31 July 2016 — Almashreq Investment Fund v Council

text:
               3.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 364/20

      Action brought on 31 July 2016 — Almashreq Investment Fund v Council
      (Case T-415/16)
      (2016/C 364/19)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Almashreq Investment Fund (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  declare the applicant’s application admissible and well-founded;

                  —

                  as a consequence, annul Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 and the subsequent measures implementing it, in so far as they relate to the applicant;

                  —

                  order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of its action, the applicant raises five pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-411/16, Syriatel Mobile Telecom v Council.


title: Case T -125/09: Action brought on 26 March 2009 — Gruener Janura AG v OHIM — Centum Aqua Marketing (HUNDERTWASSER)

text:
               6.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/17

         Action brought on 26 March 2009 — Gruener Janura AG v OHIM — Centum Aqua Marketing (HUNDERTWASSER)
   (Case T -125/09)
   2009/C 129/30
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Gruener Janura AG (represented by: P. Endres, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Centum Aqua Marketing GmbH (Magdeburg, Germany)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Reject application No 4491891 for the trade mark ‘Hundertwasser’ for the following goods and services:

                           —

                           Class 20: Goods (not included in other classes) of wood, cork, reed, cane, wicker, horn, bone, ivory, whalebone, shell, mother-of-pearl, meerschaum and substitutes for all these materials, or of plastics;

                           —

                           Class 30: Sugar, rice, tapioca, sago, artificial coffee; flour and preparations made from cereals, bread, pastry and confectionery; honey, treacle; yeast, baking-powder; salt, mustard; vinegar, sauces (condiments); spices; ice; confectionery, candyfloss;

                           —

                           Class 31: Agricultural, horticultural and forestry products and grains not included in other classes; live animals; seeds, natural plants and flowers; foodstuffs for animals; malt; products from organic farming, flowers, arrangements, plant arrangements;

                           —

                           Class 35: Advertising, marketing concepts;

                           —

                           Class 39: Transport, packaging and storage of goods; travel arrangement, exhibition guides, city and building guides, tourist services, package holidays;

               —

               Order the applicant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Centum Aqua Marketing GmbH

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘HUNDERTWASSER’ for goods and services in Classes 20, 25, 30, 31, 32, 35, 39 and 42 (application No 4 491 891)

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the word mark ‘FRIEDENSREICH HUNDERTWASSER’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 16, 19, 24, 25, 27, 32 and 33 (Community trade mark No 1 825 629) and the word mark ‘HUNDERTWASSER’ for goods and services in Classes 14, 16, 18, 19, 21, 24, 41 and 42 (Community trade mark No 1 931 393)

      Decision of the Opposition Division: partial rejection of the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: annulment of the Opposition Division’s decision and partial upholding of the appeal as well as partial rejection of the application

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 as there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue


title: Case C-456/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands), lodged on 10 October 2012 — Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel and O; other party: B

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/19

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands), lodged on 10 October 2012 — Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel and O; other party: B
   (Case C-456/12)
   2013/C 26/33
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Raad van State

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel and O

      Other party: B

      Questions referred

   […]

               1.

               Should Directive 2004/38/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC, as regards the conditions governing the right of residence of members of the family of a Union citizen who have third-country nationality, be applied by analogy, as in the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Communities in Case C-370/90 Surinder Singh
                   (2) and in Case C-291/05 Eind, (3) where a Union citizen returns to the Member State of which he is a national after having resided in another Member State in the context of Article 21(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and as the recipient of services within the meaning of Article 56 of that Treaty?

               2.

               If so, is there a requirement that the residence of the Union citizen in another Member State must have been of a certain minimum duration if, after the return of the Union citizen to the Member State of which he is a national, the member of his family who is a third-country national wishes to gain a right of residence in that Member State?

               3.

               If so, can that requirement then also be met if there was no question of continuous residence, but rather of a certain frequency of residence, such as during weekly residence at weekends or during regular visits?
               […]

               4.

               As a result of the time which elapsed between the return of the Union citizen to the Member State of which he is a national and the arrival of the family member from a third country in that Member State, in circumstances such as those of the present case, has there been a lapse of possible entitlement of the family member with third-country nationality to a right of residence derived from Union law?

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77.

      (2)  Judgment of 7 July 1992, [1992] ECR I-4265.

      (3)  Judgment of 11 December 2007, [2007] ECR I-10719.


title: Case F-13/07: Action brought on 7 February 2007 — Scozzaro v EMEA

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/56

         Action brought on 7 February 2007 — Scozzaro v EMEA
   (Case F-13/07)
   (2007/C 82/119)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Salvatore Scozzaro (Broxbourne, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Medicines Agency (EMEA)
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the decision of 31 March 2006 by which the Executive Director of the EMEA refused the applicant's request for the establishment of an Invalidity Committee and the confirmatory decision of the following 25 October;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   On 17 March 2005, the applicant, a member of the EMEA's temporary staff, fell victim to an accident at work, as a result of which he became incapable of carrying out his work. On 14 February 2006, he was informed that his contract would not be renewed beyond 15 October 2006. His request for the establishment of an Invalidity Committee was refused.
   In support of his action, the applicant pleads, in particular, breach of the first paragraph of Article 31 and of Article 33(1) of the Conditions of employment of other servants of the European Communities (RAA), as interpreted by the Civil Service Tribunal in its judgment of 16 January 2007 in Case F-119/05 Gesner v OHIM (not yet reported in the ECR).


title: Case F-55/10: Action brought on 9 July 2010 — Moschonaki v Commission

text:
               11.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/43

         Action brought on 9 July 2010 — Moschonaki v Commission
   (Case F-55/10)
   ()
   2010/C 246/76
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Chrysanthe Moschonaki (Brusssels, Belgium) (represented by: N. Lhoëst)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision refusing to take into consideration the applicant’s application for a post as a library assistant and an order that the Commission pay her a sum by way of compensation for the material and non-material harm suffered.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the appointing authority’s decision of 30 September 2009, by which it refused to take into consideration the applicant’s application in consequence of the publication of the vacancy notice COM/2009/1379 for the post of library assistant within DGT.D.3;

               —

               so far as necessary, annul the appointing authority’s decision of 31 March 2010, rejecting the complaint brought by the applicant on 28 December 2009 under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations;

               —

               grant the applicant damages of EUR 30 000 in respect of the material and non-material harm she suffered;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-23/00: Action brought on 27 January 2000 by A against Commission of the European Communities

text:
18.3.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 79/41
— annul under the last paragraph of Article 8 of the con-                — order the defendant to pay, by way of making good his
    ditions applicable to other servants (CAOS), so far as                    material and non-material damage, damages in an amount
    necessary, the legal classification of the applicants’ con-               to be set by the Court;
    tracts since in reality each of them constitutes a renewal of
    a contract for an indefinite period under Article 2(a) CAOS;         — order the defendant to pay the costs.
— annul the express decision refusing the applications
    brought by the applicants; and
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
— order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                         The applicant claims, first of all, that the contested decision is
                                                                         vitiated by a total absence of reasons, which is contrary to the
Pleas in law and main argument                                           second paragraph of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations.
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those                 The applicant claims, moreover, that the principle patere legem
advanced by the applicants in Case T-137/99 (1).                         quam ipse fecisti was infringed inasmuch as the contested
                                                                         decision does not comply with the rules which the Director of
                                                                         Cedefop had imposed on himself in his decision of 12 Nov-
(1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999, p. 38.                                        ember 1992, on provisions and criteria for the promotion of
                                                                         members of staff at the Centre.
Action brought on 24 January 2000 by David Crabbe
against European Centre for the Development of
                Vocational Training (Cedefop)                            Action brought on 27 January 2000 by A against Com-
                                                                                mission of the European Communities
                          (Case T-21/00)
                                                                                (Case T-23/00)
                          (2000/C 79/85)
                                                                                (2000/C 79/86)
                   (Language of the case: French)
An action against European Centre for the Development of                                    (Language of the case: French)
Vocational Training (Cedefop) was brought before the Court
of First Instance of the European Communities on 24 January
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
2000 by David Crabbe, residing in Perea-Thessaloniki, rep-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
resented by Marc-Albert Lucas, of the Liege Bar, with an
                                                                         European Communities on 27 January 2000 by A, residing in
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Thewes
                                                                         Saint-Hubert (Belgium), represented by Lucas Vogel, of the
& Reuter, 33 Rue des Capucins.
                                                                         Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                         Chambers of Christian Kremer, 6 Rue Heinrich Heine.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the decision of the Director of Cedefop not to
    promote him to grade A 5 or LA 5 in the 1998 promotion
    procedure, as evidenced by his memorandum of 12 May                  — annul the express decision of 4 November 1999 (notified
    1999 publishing the list of promoted officials;                           on 28 October 1999) rejecting the complaint lodged by the
                                                                              applicant on 22 July 1999 with the appointing authority
— annul the decision of the Director of Cedefop impliedly                     challenging it’s decision of 23 April 1999 ordering against
    rejecting his administrative compliant of 14 June 1999                    the applicant the disciplinary measure of removal from
    against the earlier decision, deemed to have been taken on                post, without reduction or withdrawal of entitlement to
    14 October 1999 by operation of the second indent of                      retirement pension;
    Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations in the absence of a
    reply to that complaint four months after it was lodged;             — order the defendant to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- C 79/42                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                   18.3.2000
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Removal from the register of Case T-317/97 to T-508/97 (1)
The applicant, who has been found guilty of a criminal offence                                    (2000/C 79/88)
by the courts, contests the disciplinary measure of removal
from post ordered against him or her by the appointing
authority.                                                                                (Language of the case: Portuguese)
In support of his or her arguments, the applicant claims that:            By order of 14 December 1999, the President of the Third
                                                                          Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
— the general principles applicable to disciplinary procedures            Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
    and, specifically, to the rights of the defence were infringed.       Case T-317/97 to T-508/97: David Manuel Abreu and Others
    The applicant takes the view in his respect that the decision         v Council of the European Union and Commission of the
    in question emanates specifically from the Director General           European Communities.
    for Personnel and the Administration who, as such, had
    initiated the disciplinary procedure and drawn up the
    report for the Disciplinary Board, despite forming part of            (1) OJ C 166 of 30.5.1998.
    the Disciplinary Committee himself. It is contrary to the
    abovementioned principles that a single body should
    combine the duties of a judge, set proceedings in motion
    and carry out the inquiry preceding the hearing. Moreover,
    throughout the disciplinary proceedings, the applicant’s
    request that they be made public was systematically
    refused.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-125/98 (1)
— the decision ordering the disciplinary measure was arbi-
    trary in nature or, at least contained a manifest error of                                    (2000/C 79/89)
    assessment inasmuch as, since it considered the conduct of
    which the applicant stood accused to have been proved,
    the Disciplinary Board, and subsequently the appointing                                  (Language of the case: French)
    authority, restricted themselves to referring to the judg-
    ment made by the Belgian criminal courts, whereas it is for
    the disciplinary authorities to verify for themselves whether         By order of 7 December 1999, the President of the Fifth
    the conduct with which the applicant is charged is proven.            Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                          Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
— the Disciplinary Board was not properly constituted since               Case T-125/98: Luc Veron v Commission of the European
    some of the members called upon to participate in the                 Communities.
    appointing authority’s opinion had not been able to take
    an active part in all the debates.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 312 of 10.10.1998.
        Removal from the register of Case T-96/96 (1)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-189/98 (1)
                          (2000/C 79/87)
                                                                                (2000/C 79/90)
                  (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
By order of 31 January 2000, the President of the Fifth
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                    By order of 14 December 1999, the President of the Second
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of                  Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Case T-96/96: Telecom Italia SpA (anc. Società Finanziaria                Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Telefonica per Azioni) v Commission of the European Com-                  Case T-189/98: Commune de Sassuolo v Commission of the
munities.                                                                 European Communities.
(1) OJ C 233 of 10.8.1996.                                                (1) OJ C 20 of 23.1.1999.


title: Case T-64/17: Action brought on 1 February 2017 — Lions Gate Entertainment v EUIPO (DIRTY DANCING)

text:
               3.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/56

         Action brought on 1 February 2017 — Lions Gate Entertainment v EUIPO (DIRTY DANCING)
   (Case T-64/17)
   (2017/C 104/78)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Lions Gate Entertainment Inc. (Santa Monica, California, United States) (represented by: C. Hall, Barrister and D. Farnsworth, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘DIRTY DANCING’ — Application for registration No 13 930 102

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 December 2016 in Case R 331/2016-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant before the Board of Appeal and before the General Court.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Articles 7(1)(c) and 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-580/12: Order of the General Court of 12 September 2013 — Yaqub v OHIM — Turkey (ATATURK) (Community trade mark — Appointment of a new representative — Applicant’s failure to act — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               16.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 336/24

         Order of the General Court of 12 September 2013 — Yaqub v OHIM — Turkey (ATATURK)
   (Case T-580/12) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Appointment of a new representative - Applicant’s failure to act - No need to adjudicate)
   2013/C 336/52
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: J. Yaqub (Nottingham, United Kingdom)

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

      The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court, being: Republic of Turkey

      Re:

   ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 September 2012 (Case R 2613/2011-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between the Republic of Turkey, and J. Yaqub and G. Yaqub.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the application.

               2.

               J. Yaqub shall bear his own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 79, 16.3.2013.


title: Case T-210/12: Order of the General Court of 10 December 2012 — Viasat Broadcasting UK v Commission

text:
               2.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/27

         Order of the General Court of 10 December 2012 — Viasat Broadcasting UK v Commission
   (Case T-210/12) (1)

   2013/C 32/48
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 209, 14.7.2012.


title: Case C-363/09: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 July 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 91/444/EEC — Plant protection products — Application for authorisation to place on the market — Data protection)

text:
               28.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 234/15

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 July 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-363/09) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 91/444/EEC - Plant protection products - Application for authorisation to place on the market - Data protection)
   2010/C 234/21
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Parpala and F. Jimeno Fernández, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: J. López-Medel Bascones, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 13 of Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ 1991 L 230, p. 1) — Data accompanying the application — Data use and protection — Confidentiality

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that by maintaining in force Article 38 of Ley 43/2002 de sanidad vegetal (Law 43/2002 on plant health) of 20 November 2002, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13 of Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 267, 7.11.2009.


title: Case T-95/06: Action brought on  21 March 2006  — Federaction de Cooperativas Agrarias de la Comunidad Valenciana v Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO)

text:
               3.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/43

         Action brought on 21 March 2006 — Federaction de Cooperativas Agrarias de la Comunidad Valenciana v Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO)
   (Case T-95/06)
   (2006/C 131/81)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Federación de Cooperativas Agrarias de la Comunidad Valenciana (Valencia, Spain) (represented by S. Roig Girbes, R. Ortega Bueno and M. Delgado Echevarría, lawyers)
   Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Decision of the Board of Appeal of the Community Plant Variety Office of 8 November 2005;

               —

               order the Community Plant Variety Office to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for Community plant variety rights: Jean de Maistre, following the transfer of the variety at issue, SARL Nador Cott Protection (Application No 1995/0726).
   Community plant variety right sought by: Nadorcott

      Decision of the CPVO: Community plant variety right granted (Decision No 14111).

   Appeal before the Board of Appeal lodged by: the applicant.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Application inadmissible (Case A 001/2005).

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Regulation (EC) No 1239/95 (1) and of the principle of sound administration consisting in failure to apply Article 49 of that regulation; error consisting in the dismissal of the appeal without justification.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1239/95 of 31 May 1995 establishing implementing rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 as regards proceedings before the Community Plant Variety Office (OJ 1995 L 121, p. 37).


title: Case C-528/06: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2003/98/EC — Re-use of public sector information — Failure to transpose into national law within the prescribed period)

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/25

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-528/06) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2003/98/EC - Re-use of public sector information - Failure to transpose into national law within the prescribed period)
   (2008/C 51/40)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Montaguti, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: D. Haven, acting as Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2003/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 on the re-use of public sector information (OJ 2003 L 345, p. 90)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 on the re-use of public sector information, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.


               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/2

         Election of Presidents of Chambers of three Judges
   (2008/C 301/02)
   At a meeting on 23 September 2008, the Judges of the Court of Justice, pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 10(1) of the Rules of Procedure, elected Mr Ilešič, Mr Bonichot, Mr Ó Caoimh and Mr von Danwitz as Presidents of the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Chambers of three Judges respectively, for a period of one year from 7 October 2008 to 6 October 2009.


title: Case C-512/13: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — C.G. Sopora v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of movement for workers — Article 45 TFEU — Equal treatment of non-resident workers — Tax advantage consisting in the exemption of reimbursements paid by the employer — Advantage granted on a flat-rate basis — Workers from a Member State other than that of the place of work — Requirement of residence at a certain distance from the border of the Member State of the place of work)

text:
               27.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/10

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — C.G. Sopora v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-512/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of movement for workers - Article 45 TFEU - Equal treatment of non-resident workers - Tax advantage consisting in the exemption of reimbursements paid by the employer - Advantage granted on a flat-rate basis - Workers from a Member State other than that of the place of work - Requirement of residence at a certain distance from the border of the Member State of the place of work))
   (2015/C 138/12)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: C.G. Sopora

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 45 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, by which a Member State provides that workers who resided in another Member State prior to taking up employment in its territory are to be granted a tax advantage consisting in the flat-rate exemption of reimbursement of extraterritorial expenses in an amount up to 30 % of the taxable base, on condition that those workers resided at a distance of more than 150 kilometres from its border, unless — and this is a matter for the referring court to ascertain — those limits were set in such a way that that exemption systematically gives rise to a net overcompensation in respect of the extraterritorial expenses actually incurred.

      (1)  OJ C 367, 14.12.2013.


title: Case T-638/15: Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2017 — Alcohol Countermeasure Systems (International) v EUIPO — Lion Laboratories (ALCOLOCK) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark ALCOLOCK — United Kingdom word mark ALCOLOCK — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(a) and (b) and Article 53(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Genuine use of the earlier mark)

text:
               15.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/33

         Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2017 — Alcohol Countermeasure Systems (International) v EUIPO — Lion Laboratories (ALCOLOCK)
   (Case T-638/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark ALCOLOCK - United Kingdom word mark ALCOLOCK - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(a) and (b) and Article 53(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Genuine use of the earlier mark))
   (2017/C 151/42)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Alcohol Countermeasure Systems (International) Inc. (Toronto, Canada) (represented by: E. Baud and P. Marchiset, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Hanne, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Lion Laboratories Ltd (Barry, United Kingdom)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 August 2015 (Case R 1323/2014-1) relating to invalidity proceedings between Lion Laboratories and Alcohol Countermeasure Systems (International).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Alcohol Countermeasure Systems (International) Inc. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 16, 18.1.2016.