title: Action brought on 2 January 1997 by Jean-Luc Delhaye against Commission of the European Communities (Case T-1/97)

text:
22 . 2 . 97           EN                         Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 54/37
all trade with Iraq and Kuwait. The applicant sued in the                        the decision not to promote her to grade C 1 for the
Greek courts and succeeded in obtaining a judgment                               year 1996 (published in Administrative Notice No 933
ordering the Central Bank of Iraq to pay it the amount of                        of 9 April 1996 ),
US $ 75 451 500, but execution of that judgment proved
impossible . The damage suffered by the applicant consists
precisely in the fact that it is impossible to enforce its                  — order the Commission to pay the costs.
claim. The applicant transfers the said contractual claim
against the Central Bank of Iraq to the European Union                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
and asks it, on the basis of Article 215 of the Treaty, to
pay it compensation of an equal amount.
                                                                            The applicant maintains that it is an established fact,
                                                                            which the Commission does not challenge in the contested
The applicant maintains that all the conditions giving rise                 decision, that she was of greater merit than other officials
to the non-contractual liability of the European Union are                  who were promoted to grade C 1 during the 1996
met. In particular it maintains that when Regulation                        promotions exercise . She argues that, accordingly, by
( EEC ) No 2340/90 (') was adopted the defendant                            refusing her that promotion, the Commission acted
Community bodies infringed the general principles and                       contrary to the principle of non-discrimination and
rules of Community law, specifically the principles of                      infringed Article 45 ( 1 ) of the Staff Regulations .
protection of property, equal treatment and the
prohibition of discrimination, prohibition of abuse of
powers, proportionality, protection of economic freedom
and protection of legitimate expectations .
The applicant considers that there is no need for breach of                 Action brought on 2 January 1997 by Jean-Luc Delhaye
a superior rule of law for the protection of the individual,                     against Commission of the European Communities
as has been held in the case-law of the Court with regard
                                                                                ( Case T-l/97)
to legislative acts, since Regulation ( EEC ) No 2340/90
does not constitute a legislative act, but in substance an                                            ( 97/C 54/62 )
act of a direct and individual character.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
O Council Regulation ( EEC) No 2340/90 of 8 August 1990
    preventing trade within the Community relating to Iraq and
    Kuwait, ( OJ No L 213 , 9 . 8 . 1990, p. 1 ).                           An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                            Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                            Instance of the European Communities on 2 January 1997
                                                                            by Jean-Luc Delhaye, resident in Thieu, Belgium,
                                                                            represented by Lucas Vogel, of the Brussels Bar, with an
                                                                            address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                            Christian Kremer, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt.
Action brought on 27 December 1996 by Immacolata
Manzo against the Commission of the European
                           Communities                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
                        ( Case T-221/96 )
                                                                            — annul the Commission's decision of 25 September
                           ( 97/C 54/61 )
                                                                                1996, notified to the applicant on 1 October 1996,
                                                                                rejecting his complaint of 28 May 1996 ( registered on
                 (Language of the case: French)                                 4 June 1996 ) and refusing to award him the
                                                                                installation allowance provided for in Article 5 of
                                                                                Annex VII to the Staff Regulations,
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                           — order the defendant to bear the costs .
Instance of the European Communities on 27 December
1996 by Immacolata Manzo, residing in Brussels,
represented by Lucas Vogel, of the Brussels Bar, with an                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Christian Kremer, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt.
                                                                            The applicant states that when he was re-posted to
                                                                            Brussels on his return from the Commission Delegation to
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                 Kiev the Commission's administration refused to grant
                                                                            him an installation allowance . He contests that decision
                                                                            and alleges infringement of Article 71 of the Staff
— annul the express decision of 25 September 1996                           Regulations and of Article 5 of Annex VII to those
     rejecting the applicant's complaint, submitted to the                  regulations, as well as infringement of Article 110 of the
     appointing authority on 17 June 1996 , challenging                     Staff Regulations and abuse of power.
 ---pagebreak--- No C 54/38          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    22 . 2 . 97
The applicant claims that, according to the case-law, the                   Removal from the register of T-27/96 (')
installation allowance provided for in Article 5 ( 1 ) and ( 2 )                               ( 97/C 54/63 )
of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations is in the nature of a
fixed allowance; that means that from the moment when                            (Language of the case: French)
an official shows, following a change in his place of
posting, that he has established himself in a new residence
he is entitled to the amount of the allowance without
                                                                   By order of 5 December 1996, the President of the First
                                                                   Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
having to prove that expenses were actually incurred or
the amount of those expenses . He considers that the               Communities ordered the removal from the register of
contested decision infringes that provision in that it finds
                                                                   Case T-27/96 : Boubeker Maayouchi v. Commission of the
                                                                   European Communities .
that he has not proved that expenses were actually
incurred upon his installation in Belgium. He contests,
                                                                   O OJ No C 133 , 4 . 5 . 1996 .
moreover, the alleged 'presumption of the absence of
expenses' which, according to the Commission, follows
from the mere fact that the flat which he occupied belongs
to his family, and states that such a presumption is not
laid down in any legislation and is discriminatory.
In the applicant's view, the defendant has abused its                       Removal from the register of T-88/96 (')
power and disregarded Article 110 of the Staff                                                 ( 97/C 54/64 )
Regulations in so far as, in order to justify the need for
proof of expenses, it refers to an 'agreement' on the                            (Language of the case: French)
interpretation of provisions concerning the award of the
installation allowance, which is apparently a general
provision for giving effect to the Staff Regulations and           By order of 16 January 1997, the President of the Second
adopted by the Commission in regard to this question .             Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Such a rule constitutes a restriction of the rights flowing        Communities ordered the removal from the register of
                                                                   Case T-88/96 :    Gisele       Lienard v.  Commission of the
from Article 5 of Annex VII and was adopted without
                                                                   European Communities.
observing the procedure laid down in that regard.
                                                                   (') OJ No C 233 , 10 . 8 . 1996 .


title: Action brought on 26 July 1996 by Jean-Claude Séché against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-115/96)

text:
5 . 10 . 96            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 294/ 13
— annul , in so far as is necessary, the appointment                 include 'documentary evidence relating to the candidate's
     decisions adopted at the end of internal competition            studies and vocational training and also his professional
     A/02/95 ,                                                       experience', the selection board requested some candidates
                                                                     working in the Secretariat General of the CR to supply
— order the defendant to pay the costs .                             additional supporting documents in order to regularize their
                                                                     incomplete files . Furthermore , it is not disputed that all the
                                                                     successful candidates appointed to the posts to be filled
Pleas in law and main arguments                                      came from within the CR . By contrast, none of the
                                                                     successful candidates from the organizational structure
The applicant, a Grade A 6 official of the Economic and              common to the ESC and the CR was appointed .
Social Committee ('ESC') and a successful candidate in
internal competition A/02/95 organized by the Committee
of the Regions (' CR') in order to fill eight principal
administrator posts, challenges the defendant's refusal to
appoint him to one of those posts .
First of all , he alleges breach of the competition notice in        Action brought on 26 July 1996 by Jean-Claude Seche
that Article IV ( c ) of the notice , concerning the oral tests,       against the Commission of the European Communities
refers to an examination covering, on the one hand, the
candidate's general knowledge and, on the other, his specific                                Case T-115 /96 )
knowledge relevant to the vacant posts for which he has                                       96/C 294/25
indicated a preference . The applicant notes in this respect
that at the time when the competition was started , the posts
for which the candidates could express a preference were all                        (Language of the case: French)
occupied by members of the temporary staff of the CR who
were all candidates in the competition . However, the
competition notice does not provide for the priorities               An action against the Commission of the European
indicated by candidates for vacant posts to be used for other        Communities was brought before the Court of First
purposes , and in particular as a criterion for selection by the     Instance of the European Communities on 26 July 1996 by
administration . Consequently, a factor intended for use as          Jean-Claude Seche, residing in Brussels, represented by Eric
an aid in the oral test organized by the selection board could       Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
not be used by the appointing authority to derogate from the         Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 rue du Fort
order of the candidates ' merits .                                   Rheinsheim .
Second, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 25 of          The applicant claims that the Court should:
the Staff Regulations in so far as the appointments decided
on as a result of the internal competition were motivated,           — annul the Commission 's decision of 1 December 1995
not by the desire to recruit the officials of the highest                rejecting his request of 30 August 1995 ,
standard of ability, efficiency and integrity, but simply by
the decision in principle to regularize the situation of
members of the temporary staff.                                      — order the Commission to reconstitute his career with
                                                                         effect from 1 June 1991 ,
According to the applicant, it is also apparent that the CR
infringed Article 25 of the Staff Regulations by failing to
                                                                     — in the alternative, order the Commission to pay him a
                                                                         differential allowance,
provide sufficient reasons for its decision to derogate from
the list of suitable candidates drawn up in accordance with
Article V of the notice of internal competition in question .        — order the Commission to pay him ECU 1 in symbolic
The obligation to provide reasons was all the more                       compensation for non-material damage,
 imperative in the circumstances since the Bureau of the CR
 departed from the Secretary-General 's proposed                     — order the Commission to pay the costs .
 appointments .
 Finally, the applicant considers that the decision to treat as a     Pleas in law and main arguments
 selection criterion the question whether a candidate
 belonged to the CR and the priorities indicated for certain          The applicant, an official in the Commission's Legal Service ,
 posts resulted in failure to ensure equal treatment for the          who has 14 years' seniority in Grade A 3 and has been
 successful candidates, which amounted to misuse of powers .          performing the duties of principal legal adviser since 1991 ,
 He notes in that regard that, after settling the criteria for        challenges the Commission 's refusal of his request to the
 admission to the competition and after the deadline had              appointing authority to upgrade his duties to A 2 , grant him,
 passed for submitting applications which were , in                   in the alternative, a temporary posting pending his
 accordance with Article V of the competition notice, to              promotion , reconstitute his career and pay him the
 ---pagebreak--- No C 294/ 14            EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  5 . 10 . 96
corresponding difference in salary. In his view, that decision          1 January 1997, when he reaches retirement age, and
is unlawful for the following reasons .                                 this also amounts to a breach of the duty to have regard
                                                                        for the interests of officials owed by the Community
— Breach of the principle that grade and post should                    administration .
    correspond .
                                                                     — Absence of comparative examination of candidates'
— Infringement of the third paragraph of Article 27 of the
                                                                        merits in the case of certain appointments made in the
    Staff Regulations, in that A 2 posts within the
                                                                        Legal Service .
    Commission, in particular in its Legal Service, are filled
    on the basis of nationality quotas .
                                                                     — Failure to state reasons .
— Breach not only of the principle of sound administration
    but also of the right of officials in Grade A 3 , in             — Preference given to another official for appointment to
    particular those who, like the applicant, perform duties            Grade A 2 because of unwillingness to award that grade
    as head of a section, to enjoy prospects of promotion.              to a legal adviser in Grade A 3 one year before he would
    That defect results from the fact that during the                   reach the compulsory retirement age, although that has
    reference period the Commission failed to advertise A 2             previously been done in the Legal Service and the Staff
    posts or to fill them and resorted, where necessary, to the         Regulations do not specify an age limit for
    practice of transferring officials with their posts .               promotion .
— Infringement of the rules relating to delegation, in that,         — Contrary to Article 7 of the Staff Regulations, a number
    although formally the Commission is empowered to                    of A 2 appointments made in the reference period did
    make the relevant decision, in reality it defers to the             not comply with the interests of the service which must
    choice of the chefs de cabinet who themselves pass                  be satisfied when filling posts, but amount to
    responsibility therefore to the chefs de cabinet                    ' appointments for organizational reasons'.
    'concerned'. That practice clearly amounts to a misuse of
    power and abuse of process .                                     — Breach of the principle of equal treatment, in that the
— Infringement of the rules relating to temporary postings,             applicant was discriminated against on the grounds of
    since the appointing authority did not excise the relevant          nationality, age and sex .
    power 'with regard to the circumstances of the case',
    contrary to Article 7 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations .           — Breach of good faith and of the principle of the
                                                                        protection of legitimate expectations, in so far as the
— Breach of the principles of the right to work and of the              applicant asserts that he is in a situation in which the
    public service relating to acting posts, inasmuch as such           Community administration has given him reasonable
    posts can only be temporary in nature and must be                   grounds to expect that he will be promoted to Grade A 2 ,
    limited to a few months , pending departmental                      given, first, that a 'French ' A 2 post has been made
    reorganization, in some circumstances through                       available to the Legal Service and, secondly, that
    promotion of the person in the acting post . The                    performing the duties of a principal adviser traditionally
    applicant will have been in an acting post for six years on         leads to promotion to Grade A 2 .


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 29 September 1998 in Case C-39/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof): Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc. (Trade mark law - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of goods or services)

text:
C 340/6               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    7.11.98
Rühl, and subsequently D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal                H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet and R. Schintgen (Presidents
Administrators, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on           of Chambers), P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray, D. A. O.
29 September 1998, in which it:                                      Edward, G. Hirsch, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; F. G.
                                                                     Jacobs, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy
                                                                     Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
1. dismisses the pleas of inadmissibility;                           29 September 1998, in which it has ruled:
2. declares that, by failing to provide for appropriate              1. On a proper construction of Article 4(1)(b) of First
     penalties in cases where companies limited by shares                Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988
     fail to effect compulsory disclosure of their annual                to approximate the laws of the Member States relating
     accounts as prescribed, in particular, by Article 2(1)(f),          to trade marks, the distinctive character of the earlier
     and Articles 3 and 6 of the First Council Directive                 trade mark, and in particular its reputation, must be
     68/151/EEC of 9 March 1968 on coordination of                       taken into account when determining whether the
     safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of            similarity between the goods or services covered by the
     members and others are required by Member States                    two trade marks is sufficient to give rise to the
     of companies within the meaning of the second                       likelihood of confusion.
     paragraph of Article 58 of the Treaty, with a view to
     making such safeguards equivalent throughout the
     Community, in conjunction with Article 47(1) of the             2. There may be a likelihood of confusion within the
     Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC of 25 July 1978                 meaning of Article 4(1)(b) of Directive 89/104/EEC
     based on Article 54(3)(g) of the Treaty on the annual               even where the public perception is that the goods or
     accounts of certain types of companies, the Federal                 services have different places of production. By
     Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations            contrast, there can be no such likelihood where it does
     under those directives;                                             not appear that the public could believe that the goods
                                                                         or services come from the same undertaking or, as the
                                                                         case may be, from economically-linked undertakings.
3. orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the
     costs.                                                          (1) OJ C 94 of 22.3.1997.
(1) OJ C 208 of 12.8.1995.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (First Chamber)
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 29 September 1998
                    of 29 September 1998
                                                                     in Case C-263/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
in Case C-39/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from             the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division): The
the Bundesgerichtshof): Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v.                    Queen v. Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce, ex
                Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc. (1)                                  parte First City Trading Ltd and Others (1)
(Trade mark law Ð Likelihood of confusion Ð Similarity               (Agriculture Ð Common organisation of the markets Ð
                     of goods or services)                           Beef Ð Export refunds Ð Beef of British origin
                        (98/C 340/10)                                repatriated to the United Kingdom as a result of the
                                                                     announcements and decisions made in relation to mad
                                                                                cow disease' Ð Force majeure)
               (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (98/C 340/11)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                      (Language of the case: English)
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                     In Case C-263/97: reference to the Court under Article 177
In Case C-39/97: reference to the Court under Article 177            of the EC Treaty by the High Court of Justice, Queen's
of the EC Treaty from the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal                 Bench Division (England and Wales), for a preliminary
Court of Justice) (Germany), for a preliminary ruling in             ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
the proceedings pending before that court between Canon              between The Queen and Intervention Board for
Kabushiki Kaisha and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc.,                       Agricultural Produce, ex parte First City Trading Ltd and
formerly Pathe Communications Corporation Ð on the                   Others, on the interpretation of Articles 23 and 33
interpretation of Article 4(1)(b) of First Council Directive         of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of
89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the                    27 November 1987 laying down common detailed rules
laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ                for the application of the system of export refunds on
L 40 of 11.2.1989, p. 1) Ð the Court, composed of: G. C.             agricultural products (OJ L 351 of 14.12.1987, p. 1) and
Rodríguez Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur),              on the validity of Commission Decision 96/239/EC of


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 September 2004 in Case T-290/02: Associazione Consorzi Tessili (Ascontex) v Commission of the European Communities (European Regional Development Fund — Community initiative for small and medium-sized enterprises — Organisation of ‘IBEX’ reverse exhibitions — Cancellation and demand for repayment of financial assistance — Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 — Article 24 — Action for annulment)

text:
               20.11.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 284/15

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 14 September 2004
   in Case T-290/02: Associazione Consorzi Tessili (Ascontex) v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (European Regional Development Fund - Community initiative for small and medium-sized enterprises - Organisation of ‘IBEX’ reverse exhibitions - Cancellation and demand for repayment of financial assistance - Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 - Article 24 - Action for annulment)
   (2004/C 284/31)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-290/02: Associazione Consorzi Tessili (Ascontex), represented by P. Mbaya Kapita and L. Denis, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents C. Giolito and L. Flynn, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2002) 1702 of 12 July 2002 cancelling FEDER subsidy No 97.05.10.001 granted to the applicant by Decision SG(98)D/2251 of 18 March 1998 and ordering repayment of the sum advanced by the Commission in the context of a project relating to the organisation of an international exhibition in the textile and clothing sector on Capri (Euresprit project) — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: J. Pirrung, President, A.W.H. Meij and N.J. Forwood, Judges; I. Natsinas, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 September 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 289 of 23.11.2002.


title: Case T-288/16: Action brought on 2 June 2016 – Convivo v EUIPO – Porcesadora Nacional de Alimentos (M'Cooky)

text:
               18.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/51

         Action brought on 2 June 2016 – Convivo v EUIPO – Porcesadora Nacional de Alimentos (M'Cooky)
   (Case T-288/16)
   (2016/C 260/63)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Convivo GmbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: C. Düchs, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Porcesadora Nacional de Alimentos C.A. Pronaca (Quito, Ecuador)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark ‘M’Cooky’ – International registration designating the European Union No 1 075 242

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 March 2016 in Case R 1039/2015-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order the EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the Applicant for the present judicial proceedings including those incurred in the appeal and opposition proceedings;

               —

               order the EUIPO and the intervener to bear their own costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-461/00: Action brought on 21 December 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria

text:
10.2.2001               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 45/15
Action brought on 21 December 2000 by the Commission                      Action brought on 21 December 2000 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Republic of                       of the European Communities against the Republic of
                             Austria                                                                       Austria
                         (Case C-461/00)                                                             (Case C-462/00)
                          (2001/C 45/28)                                                              (2001/C 45/29)
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                An action against the Republic of Austria was brought
21 December 2000 by the Commission of the European                        before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
Communities, represented by Josef Christian Schieferer, of its            21 December 2000 by the Commission of the European
Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg at               Communities, represented by Josef Christian Schieferer, of its
the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service,              Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg.                                           the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service,
                                                                          Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
(1) declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
      administrative measures necessary in order to comply in             (1) declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
      the Province of Burgenland with European Parliament                       administrative measures necessary in order to comply in
      and Council Directive 97/52/EC of 13 October 1997                         the Province of Burgenland with Directive 98/4/EC of the
      amending Directives 92/50/EEC, 93/36/EEC and                              European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February
      93/37/EEC concerning the coordination of procedures                       1998 amending Directive 93/38/EEC coordinating the
      for the award of public service contracts, public supply                  procurement procedures of entities operating in the
      contracts and public works contracts respectively (1), and                water, energy, transport and telecommunications sec-
      by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Republic                 tors (1), and by failing to inform the Commission thereof,
      of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC              the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations
      Treaty and under Article 4 of that directive;                             under the EC Treaty and under Article 2 of that directive;
(2) order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.                       (2) order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third paragraph
                                                                          The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
of Article 249 EC and of the first paragraph of Article 10 EC
                                                                          in Case C-461/00 (2); the time-limit for transposition expired
obliges Member States to transpose directives addressed to
                                                                          on 16 February 1999.
them into national law within the time-limit prescribed for so
doing. That time-limit expired on 1 October 1998.
                                                                          (1) OJ 1998 L 101, p. 1.
(1) OJ 1997 L 328, p. 1.                                                  (2) See p. 15 of this Official Journal.


title: Case T-474/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 October 2007 — Pergan Hilfsstoffe für industrielle Prozesse v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Organic peroxides — Decision refusing a request for removal of certain passages from the definitive published version of a decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Disclosure of information concerning the applicant by publishing a decision not addressed to it — Article 21 of Regulation No 17 — Professional secrecy — Article 287 EC — Presumption of innocence — Annulment)

text:
               24.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/25

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 October 2007 — Pergan Hilfsstoffe für industrielle Prozesse v Commission
   (Case T-474/04) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Organic peroxides - Decision refusing a request for removal of certain passages from the definitive published version of a decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Disclosure of information concerning the applicant by publishing a decision not addressed to it - Article 21 of Regulation No 17 - Professional secrecy - Article 287 EC - Presumption of innocence - Annulment)
   (2007/C 283/44)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Pergan Hilfsstoffe für industrielle Prozesse GmbH (Bocholt, Germany) (represented by: M. Klusmann and F. Wiemer, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Bouquet, Agent, assisted by A. Böhlke, lawyer)
   Re:
   Application for the annulment of Commission Decision (2004) D/204343 of 1 October 2004 in so far as it rejects the applicant's request for removal of all references to it in the definitive published version of Commission Decision 2005/349/EC of 10 December 2003 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-2/37.857 — Organic peroxides) (OJ 2005 L 110, p. 44).
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision (2004) D/204343 of 1 October 2004;

               2.

               Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 45, 19.2.2005.


title: Case C-433/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesgerichtshof by order of 26 September 2001 in the case of Freistaat Bayern v Jan Blĳdenstein

text:
2.2.2002               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 31/3
      limit is proportionate and necessary for the protection of       recovery the trainee’s maintenance claim against his parents,
      human health, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its      which arises under private law and has been transferred to the
      obligations under Articles 28 and 30 of the EC Treaty;           plaintiff by statute, in respect of the period for which the
      and                                                              education grant was paid?
—     Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                       Action brought on 9 November 2001 by the Commission
                                                                       of the European Communities against the United
The competent Italian authorities prohibit the marketing of                                           Kingdom
energy drinks which, although lawfully manufactured and
marketed in other Member States, have a caffeine content in
excess of 125 mg/l. Such a prohibition constitutes an obstacle                                   (Case C-434/01)
to the free movement of goods prohibited by Article 28 EC.
                                                                                (2002/C 31/06)
In the present case, Article 30 EC cannot properly be relied
upon by the authorities in order to justify the abovementioned
prohibition on marketing of energy drinks inasmuch as the
                                                                       An action against the United Kingdom was brought before the
Italian authorities have not indicated on what scientific data
                                                                       Court of Justice of the European Communities on 9 November
they based the adoption of the disputed prohibitive provisions
                                                                       2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
nor demonstrated the extent to which a caffeine content in
                                                                       represented by Richard Wainwright, acting as agent, with an
excess of 125 mg/l is harmful to public health.
                                                                       address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                       The Applicant requests that the Court should:
                                                                       —     declare that, by failing to ensure that the United Kingdom
                                                                             is in compliance with its obligations under Articles 12
                                                                             and 16 of Directive 92/43/EEC (1), the United Kingdom
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesge-                          has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive:
richtshof by order of 26 September 2001 in the case of
               Freistaat Bayern v Jan Blijdenstein                     —     order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.
                         (Case C-433/01)
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
                          (2002/C 31/05)
                                                                       The Commission maintains that, by allowing decisions of local
                                                                       planning authorities, who are not relevant authorities for the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 purposes of Article 12 and 16 of the directive, to pre-empt
European Communities by order of 26 September 2001 by                  decisions by the national conservation bodies, the Agriculture
the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Supreme Court), which was               Minister or Secretary of State for the Environment, as to
received at the Court Registry on 9 November 2001, for a               whether a derogation under Article 16(1) can be granted and
preliminary ruling in the case of Freistaat Bayern v Jan               thus failing to correctly apply the two-pronged test laid down
Blijdenstein on the following question:                                in the first paragraph of Article 16(1) as well as the test of
                                                                       showing that imperative reasons of overriding interest exist,
                                                                       the United Kingdom is in breach of its obligations under
                                                                       Articles 12 and 16 of the Directive.
May a plaintiff rely on the special rule on jurisdiction in
Article 5(2) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on
Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and             (1) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation
Commercial Matters, as amended by the Convention on the                    of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ L 206,
accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese                       22.7.1992, p. 7).
Republic of 26 May 1989, where its authorities have paid an
education grant to a trainee for a certain period of time under
public law and the plaintiff seeks to enforce in an action for


title: Case T-50/14: Judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2015 — Demp v OHIM (TURBO DRILL) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark TURBO DRILL — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               25.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 27/42

         Judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2015 — Demp v OHIM (TURBO DRILL)
   (Case T-50/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark TURBO DRILL - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 027/50)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Demp BV (Vianen, Netherlands) (represented by: C. Gehweiler, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 November 2013 (Case R 1254/2013-4), concerning an application for registration of the word sign TURBO DRILL as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Demp BV to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 78, 15.3.2014.


title: Case C-217/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Εfeteio Athinon (Greece) lodged on 18 April 2016 — European Commission v Dimos Zagoriou

text:
               20.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 222/7

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Εfeteio Athinon (Greece) lodged on 18 April 2016 — European Commission v Dimos Zagoriou
   (Case C-217/16)
   (2016/C 222/09)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Referring court

   Εfeteio Athinon (Greece)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: European Commission

      Respondent: Dimos Zagoriou

      Questions referred

               1.

               What is the nature of the acts of the European Commission when it exercises its powers pursuant to Regulations No 2052/88, (1) No 4253/88 (2) and No 4256/88 (3) and, more specifically, are those acts of the Commission acts of public law and do they give rise to administrative disputes as to the substance in any event, in particular where the subject matter of the attachment by the European Commission of assets held by a third party is a private debt, whereas the initial debt for whose satisfaction enforcement is proceeded with derives from a legal relationship governed by public law which has arisen from the foregoing acts of the European Commission, or are they acts of private law and do they give rise to private disputes?

               2.

               Having regard to the fact that, under Article 299 TFEU, enforcement of acts of the European Commission which impose a pecuniary obligation on persons other than Member States is to be governed by the rules of civil procedure in force in the State in the territory of which enforcement is proceeded with and that, under that article, the courts of the country concerned are to have jurisdiction over complaints that enforcement is being carried out in an irregular manner, how is the jurisdiction of the national courts over disputes which arise from such enforcement determined, when under national law those disputes are administrative disputes as to the substance, that is to say, when the underlying relationship is one of public law?

               3.

               In the case of enforcement of acts of the European Commission which are adopted pursuant to Regulations No 2052/88, No 4253/88 and No 4256/88 and impose a pecuniary obligation on a person other than Member States, is the capacity to be made a defendant that is possessed by the person liable assessed on the basis of national law or of Community law?

               4.

               When the person liable to discharge a pecuniary obligation stemming from an act of the European Commission adopted pursuant to Regulations No 2052/88, No 4253/88 and No 4258/88 is a community undertaking, which subsequently was wound up, does the community which owns that undertaking owe an obligation to discharge that pecuniary obligation to the European Commission under the foregoing regulations?

      (1)  OJ 1988 L 185, p. 9.

      (2)  OJ 1988 L 374, p. 1.

      (3)  OJ 1988 L 374, p. 25.


title: Action brought on 3 May 1996 by Willy De Corte against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-62/96)

text:
No C 197/20           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                       6 . 7 . 96
Action brought on 29 April 1996 by Merck & Co. Inc., NV                extent and for such periods as are strictly necessary in
Organon and Glaxo Wellcome pic against the Commission                  order to rectify the situation linked to the serious
                of the European Communities                            difficulties that are liable to persist.
                        {Case T-60/96 )
                         ( 96/C 197/42 )                            — Manifest error of assessment of the facts
               (Language of the case: Englisb)                         Assuming that the Commission did have a power of
                                                                       appraisal in regard to the economic evidence submitted
An action against the Commission of the European                       by the abovementioned Member States under
Communities was brought before the Court of First                      Article 379, the applicants state that it was manifestly
Instance of the European Communities on 29 April 1996 by               incorrect in finding that an increase in the volume of
Merck & Co., Inc., NV Organon and Glaxo Wellcome pic,                  imports from Spain of pharmaceuticals patented in the
represented by Romano Subiotto, Solicitor of the Supreme               importing Member State but not in Spain 'would not
Court of England and Wales, and Mario Siragusa, of the                 appear' to be so significant in the long run as to bring
Rome Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the             about serious difficulties on the pharmaceutical market
office of Pierre Elvinger, Elvinger & Hoss, 15 côte                    of the importing Member States . The applicants still
d'Eich .                                                               submit that the mere use of a standard and a general
                                                                       formula to reject differing and detailed economic
                                                                       evidence submitted by Member States indicates that the
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                       Commission has failed to provide sufficient reasons for
                                                                       its conclusion .
— annul the decisions of the Commission of 20 December
    1995 ,
                                                                    — Breach of essential procedural requirements
— declare that the Commission must fulfil its obligations
    under Article 176 , in particular by replacing the
                                                                       According to the applicants :
    decisions with effect from the date on which they were
    adopted despite the expiry of the transitional period laid
    down in Article 379 of Spain's Act of Accession,                   — the Commission has ignored its duty to accept a
                                                                            Member State's assessment, as indicated by the use of
— order the Commission to pay the costs .                                   the term 'shall' in Article 379 (2 ),
Pleas in law and main arguments:                                       — the observance of the right to be heard, in
                                                                            conjunction with the Commission's duty to carry out
The applicants, three representative undertakings in the                    a detailed and impartial examination of the
field of pharmaceutical products, challenge the Commission                  applications, requires the Commission, prior to
decisions rejecting the adoption of safeguard measures to                   rejecting them, to explain precisely why it considered
solve the problems caused by the expiry of the transitional                 the evidence submitted by the Member States to be
period provided by Article 47 of the Act of Accession of                    insufficient to establish the likely existence of serious
Spain with respect to pharmaceutical products put on the                    difficulties liable to persist. This procedural step
market in Spain, where they are unpatentable, and exported                  would have been essential to enable the Member
to other European Community Member States in which                          States to submit any further relevant evidence ,
they are protected by patents . The adoption of these
safeguard measures was demanded by France, Belgium,                    — the Commission has breached the principle of
Austria, Denmark, Ireland, the United Kingdom and                           inalterability of acts in formulating the contested
Germany.                                                                    decisions .
The application is based on the following grounds :
— Manifest error of legal assessment
     Contrary to the contested decision, according to which
     measures taken on the basis of Article 379 of the Act of       Action brought on 3 May 1996 by Willy De Corte against
     Accession of Spain, the legal basis for general safeguard            the Commission of the European Communities
     measures, cannot last beyond the end of the transitional                                Case T-62/96)
     period, the applicants submit that the end of this period
     could never have been meant to signify complete                                         ( 96/C 197/43 )
     convergence between the economies of Spain and those
     of the existing Member States and the automatic                                (Language of the case: French)
     irrelevance of the possible need for a Member State to
     maintain measures authorized during the transitional
     period as protection against difficulties arising from this    An action against the Commission of European
     lack of convergence . Moreover, Article 379 expressly          Communities was brought before the Court of First
     provides that protective measures must be of such an           Instance of the European Communities on 3 May 1996 by
 ---pagebreak--- 6 . 7 . 96             EN I               Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 197/21
Willy De Corte, residing at Halle ( Belgium), represented by         warrant the conclusion that that condition was related to
Lucas Vogel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service        the events of 16 April 1988 , which had not given rise to any
at the Chambers of Christian Kremer, 8—10 rue Mathias                injury. The Commission then opened the procedure
Hardt .                                                              provided for by Article 21 of the Rules on the insurance of
                                                                     officials of the European Communities against the risk of
The applicant claims that the Court should :                         accident and of occupational disease, and communicated a
                                                                     draft decision to the applicant on 23 July 1992 . The
— annul the contested decision, adopted on 25 January                applicant then requested that a meeting of the medical
     1996 and notified to the applicant on 1 February 1996,          committee be held in accordance with the provisions of
     whereby the complaint lodged by the applicant on                Article 23 of the abovementioned Rules . Upon the
     14 September 1996 was rejected and the Commission               conclusion of a particularly lengthy procedure before the
     refused to treat as an accident and accept, in accordance       medical committee, the Commission communicated to the
     with Article 73 of the Staff Regulations, financial             applicant the decision of 16 June 1 995 refusing to treat the
     responsibility for the consequences of the myocardial           infarction suffered by him on 16 April 1988 as a matter
     infarction suffered by the applicant on 16 April                covered by Article 73 of the Staff Regulations. The applicant
     1988 ,                                                          lodged a complaint against that decision. The decision of
                                                                     25 January 1996, which forms the subject-matter of the
— order the defendant to pay the costs and the expenses              present action, was adopted in response to that
     necessarily incurred for the purposes of the                    complaint.
     proceedings .
                                                                     The applicant maintains, first, that the contested decision is
Pleas in law and main arguments:                                     in breach of the decision of 1 3 June 1988 and the principle of
                                                                     the protection of legitimate expectations .
The applicant states that on 16 April 1988 he took part in a
football match during which he suffered a myocardial
infarction following a violent collision with another player.        He also pleads infringement of Article 2 of the
An accident report was immediately sent to the                       abovementioned Rules, in that the administration refused to
Commission, accompanied by a medical certificate . On                accept that the infarction suffered by him constituted an
13 June 1988 the Commission informed the applicant that              'accident', whereas that provision states that any muscular
financial responsibility for the accident was accepted               complaint caused by exertion constitutes an accident.
pursuant to Article 73 of the Staff Regulations.
Subsequently, however, the Commission informed him that,             Lastly, the applicant contends that the administration has
in its opinion, the infarction had resulted from a                   committed a manifest error of assessment in considering
pathological condition linked to a thrombosis of the                 that the infarction suffered by him resulted from a
right-hand coronary artery and that there was nothing to             pre-existing coronary disease .


title: Case T-227/07: Action brought on 28 June 2007 — Spain v Commission

text:
               8.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/37

         Action brought on 28 June 2007 — Spain v Commission
   (Case T-227/07)
   (2007/C 211/72)
   Language of the proceedings: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Muñoz Pérez)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Forms of order sought

               —

               declare void Commission Decision 2007/243/EC of 18 April 2007 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), in so far as it forms the subject-matter of the present action and,

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Kingdom of Spain disputes the contested decision in so far as it provides for a financial correction of the costs incurred in the context of production aid for products processed from tomatoes in the financial years 2003 and 2004, in the amount of EUR 4 090 316,46.
   In support of its claims, the applicant alleges:

               —

               infringement of Articles 2 and 3 of Regulation No 729/70 (1) and of Article 2 of Regulation No 1258/1999 (2) given the non-existence of the irregularities relied on by the Commission relating, in particular, to the checks of primary materials at the delivery points, that is to say, the absence of nightly checks by the inspectors of the Extremadura Autonomous Community, failure to retain proof of weighing, and ‘en masse’ signature of delivery notes;

               —

               in the alternative, breach of the principle of proportionality, given that the Commission decided to impose a financial correction on the entire quantity of tomatoes delivered, even though the actual irregularity on which the correction is based would concern only those quantities delivered at night, which means that the corrections could have been applied only to those quantities.

      (1)  Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 of the Council of 21 April 1970 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ English Special Edition 1970 (I), p. 218).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ L, 26.6.1999, 160, p. 103).


title: Case C-662/15: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 24 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Lohmann & Rauscher International GmbH & Co. KG v BIOS Medical Services GmbH, formerly BIOS Naturprodukte GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Directive 93/42/EEC — Medical devices — Class I device (sterile wound dressings) which has been the subject of a conformity assessment procedure by the manufacturer — Parallel imports — Addition to the labelling of information relating to the importer — Supplementary conformity assessment procedure)

text:
               30.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/14

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 24 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Lohmann & Rauscher International GmbH & Co. KG v BIOS Medical Services GmbH, formerly BIOS Naturprodukte GmbH
   (Case C-662/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Directive 93/42/EEC - Medical devices - Class I device (sterile wound dressings) which has been the subject of a conformity assessment procedure by the manufacturer - Parallel imports - Addition to the labelling of information relating to the importer - Supplementary conformity assessment procedure))
   (2017/C 030/15)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Lohmann & Rauscher International GmbH & Co. KG

      Defendant: BIOS Medical Services GmbH, formerly BIOS Naturprodukte GmbH

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 1(2)(f) and Article 11 of Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices, as amended by Directive 2007/47/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007, must be interpreted as not requiring a parallel importer of a medical device, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which bears a CE marking and which has been subjected to a conformity assessment within the meaning of that Article 11, to carry out a further assessment designed to certify the conformity of the information allowing its identification which that parallel importer adds to the labelling of that device with a view to that device being placed on the market of the Member State of importation.

      (1)  OJ C 118, 4.4.2016.


title: Case C-372/08 P: Order of the Court of 5 May 2009 — Atlantic Dawn and Others v Commission of the European Communities, Kingdom of Spain (Appeal — Regulation (EC) No 147/2007 — Reduction in mackerel quotas allocated to Ireland for years 2007 to 2012 — Action for annulment of Regulation No 147/2007 brought by a group of Irish fishermen comprising 20 out of 23 licence holders from the Refrigerated Sea Water pelagic fleet — Inadmissibility — Appeal clearly unfounded)

text:
               29.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/16

         Order of the Court of 5 May 2009 — Atlantic Dawn and Others v Commission of the European Communities, Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-372/08 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Regulation (EC) No 147/2007 - Reduction in mackerel quotas allocated to Ireland for years 2007 to 2012 - Action for annulment of Regulation No 147/2007 brought by a group of Irish fishermen comprising 20 out of 23 licence holders from the Refrigerated Sea Water pelagic fleet - Inadmissibility - Appeal clearly unfounded)
   2009/C 205/29
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Atlantic Dawn Ltd, Antarctic Fishing Co. Ltd, Atlantean Ltd, Killybegs Fishing Enterprises Ltd, Doyle Fishing Co. Ltd, Western Seaboard Fishing Co. Ltd, O’Shea Fishing Co. Ltd, Aine Fishing Co. Ltd, Brendelen Ltd, Cavankee Fishing Co. Ltd, Ocean Trawlers Ltd, Eileen Oglesby, Noel McGing, Mullglen Ltd, Bradan Fishing Co. Ltd, Larry Murphy, Pauric Conneely, Thomas Flaherty, Carmarose Trawling Co. Ltd, Colmcille Fishing Ltd (represented by: G. Hogan, SC, N. Travers, BL, T. O’Sullivan, BL, and D. Barry, solicitor)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: K. Banks, Agent), Kingdom of Spain (represented by: N. Díaz Abad, Agent)

      Re:

   Appeal against the order of 2 June 2008 in Case T-172/07 Atlantic Dawn and Others v Commission by which the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) declared inadmissible an action for the annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 147/2007 of 15 February 2007 adapting certain fish quotas from 2007 to 2012 pursuant to Article 23(4) of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy — Requirement that the contested measure must be of direct concern

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Atlantic Dawn Ltd, Antarctic Fishing Co. Ltd, Atlantean Ltd, Killybegs Fishing Enterprises Ltd, Doyle Fishing Co. Ltd, Western Seaboard Fishing Co. Ltd, O’Shea Fishing Co. Ltd, Aine Fishing Co. Ltd, Brendelen Ltd, Cavankee Fishing Co. Ltd, Ocean Trawlers Ltd, Eileen Oglesby, Noel McGing, Mullglen Ltd, Bradan Fishing Co. Ltd, Larry Murphy, Pauric Conneely, Thomas Flaherty, Carmarose Trawling Co. Ltd and Colmcille Fishing Ltd to pay their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 285, 08.11.2008.


title: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 January 2001 in Case C-391/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bari, Sezione Distaccata di Rutigliano): Giovanni Colapietro against Ispettorato Generale Repressione Frodi — Ministero per le Politiche Agricole (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Lack of jurisdiction — Inadmissibility)

text:
C 200/32                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          14.7.2001
                    ORDER OF THE COURT                                                         ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                         (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 25 January 2001
                        of 19 January 2001
                                                                           in Case C-111/99 P: Lech-Stahlwerke GmbH v Com-
                                                                              mission of the European Communities and Others (1)
in Case C-391/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunale di Bari, Sezione Distaccata di Rutigliano):
                                                                           (Appeal — ECSC — State aid to steel undertakings —
Giovanni Colapietro against Ispettorato Generale
                                                                            Appeal manifestly inadmissible and manifestly unfounded)
Repressione Frodi — Ministero per le Politiche Agricole (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 200/58)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Lack of jurisdiction
                        — Inadmissibility)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                          (2001/C 200/57)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                           In Case C-111/99 P: Lech-Stahlwerke GmbH, established in
                                                                           Meitingen-Herbertshofen (Germany), represented by R. Bier-
                                                                           wagen, Rechtsanwalt — appeal against the judgment delivered
                                                                           on 21 January 1999 by the Fifth Chamber (Extended Compo-
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     sition) of the Court of First Instance of the European Communi-
                   in the European Court Reports)                          ties in Joined Cases T-129/95, T-2/96 and T-97/96 Neue
                                                                           Maxhütte Stahlwerke GmbH and Lech-Stahlwerke GmbH v
                                                                           Commission, seeking to have that judgment, in so far as it
                                                                           concerns the appellant, set aside, the other parties to the
In Case C-391/00: reference to the Court under Article 234                 proceedings being Commission of the European Communities
EC from the Tribunale di Bari, Sezione Distaccata di Rutigliano            (Agents: V. Kreuschitz and P.F. Nemitz), Federal Republic of
(Bari District Court, Rutigliano Division) for a preliminary               Germany (Agents: W.-D. Plessing and C.-D. Quassowski),
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between                United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,
Giovanni Colapietro and Ispettorato Generale Repressione                   Neue Maxhütte Stahlwerke GmbH, established in Sulzbach-
Frodi — Ministero per le Politiche Agricole — on the                       Rosenberg (Germany) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed
Community rules on compulsory distillation — the Court                     of A. La Pergola, President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet,
(Sixth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann (Rapporteur),                     P. Jann (Rapporteur), C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; D. Ruiz-
President of the Chamber, V. Skouris, R. Schintgen, N. Colneric            Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made
and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate                  an order on 25 January 2001, the operative part of which is as
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 19 January              follows:
2001, in which it has ruled:
                                                                           1.    The appeal is dismissed.
There is no need to give a reply to the questions submitted by the         2.    Lech-Stahlwerke GmbH is ordered to pay the costs.
Tribunale di Bari, Sezione Distaccata di Rutigliano, by order of
19 September 2000.
                                                                           3.    Federal Republic of Germany shall bear its own costs.
(1) OJ C 4 of 6.1.2001.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 160 of 5.6.1999.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Second Chamber - Fiscal Matters) by judgment of that court of 11 October 1995 in the case of Fazenda Pública against UCAL (União das Cooperativas Abastecedoras de Leite de Lisboa, UCRL) (Case C-347/95)

text:
No C 351 /8              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       30 . 12 . 95
     12 December 1992 ( ): that Decision forms part of the                 2 . If question 1 is answered in the affirmative :
     primary law binding upon the Member States and on the
     institutions created by the Treaties . It constitutes a legal               ( a ) what period of accommodation can regularly by
     rule relating to the application of the Treaties,                                 regarded as short-term ?
     compliance with which is to be ensured by the Court. By
     deciding to hold eleven periods of plenary sessions in                            Is it no longer 'provision of accommodation in the
     Strasbourg and, in parallel, to fix at eight the number of                        hotel sector' if the operator keeps the rooms ready
     additional sessions in Brussels, the Parliament has failed                        for long-term accommodation and this finds
     to comply to the letter with the Edinburgh decision,                              expression in the conclusion of a long-term letting
     which imposed on it a binding obligation to hold 12                               agreement ( longer than six months )?
     plenary sessions in Strasbourg, the seat of the institution .
     Moreover, the contested decision does not respect the
     inherent balance of that decision and renders it                            ( h ) Is a tax exemption under Article 13 ( B ) ( b ) ( 1 ) for a
                                                                                proportion of the time possible if it transpires that
     nugatory ,                                                                        all the accommodation can be let on a short or
                                                                                long-term basis according to choice ?
— lack of competence : the European Parliament is obliged ,
     in the exercise of its powers to regulate its internal
     organization, to respect the competence of the Member                 3 . If question 1 is answered in the negative :
     States to fix the location of the seats of the institutions .
     To allow the European Parliament to hold additional
                                                                                On the basis of what temporal , spatial and
     plenary sessions in Strasbourg without first holding the                    conceptual criteria must the phrase 'provision of
     1 2 monthly sessions in Strasbourg would effectively call                   accommodation ... in the hotel sector or in sectors with
     in question the reality of the seat of the institution,                     a similar function ' be defined and which of them must
                                                                                necessarily be present ?
— breach of essential procedural requirements : the
     President of the European Parliament did not have the
     capacity to accept an amendment which is contrary to                  (') OJ No L 145 , p . 1 .
     the Decision adopted in Edinburgh .
      ( In the alternative :) A statement of reasons should have
     been given for the contested Decision , despite the
     absence of any express provision to that effect in the
     Treaties .
                                                                           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supremo Tribunal
(■) OJ No C 341 , 23 . 12 . 1992 , p . 1 .                                 Administrativo ( Second Chamber — Fiscal Matters ) by
                                                                           judgment of that court of 11 October 1995 in the case of
                                                                           Fazenda Publica against UCAL ( Uniao das Cooperativas
                                                                                Abastecedoras de Leite de Lisboa, UCRL )
                                                                                ( Case C-347/95 )
                                                                                ( 95./C 351 / 13 )
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht
Miinchen by order of that court of 20 September 1995 in the                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
         case of Elisabeth Blasi v. Finanzamt Miinchen I
                                                                           European Communities by judgment of the Supremo
                           ( Case C-346/95 )                               Tribunal Administrativo ( Supreme Administrative Court )
                              ( 95/C 351 / 12 )                             ( Second Chamber — Fiscal Matters ) of 11 October 1995 ,
                                                                           which was received at the Court Registry on 1 3 November
                                                                            1 995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Fazenda Publica
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      against UCAL (Uniao das Cooperativas Abastecedoras de
European Communities by an order of the Third Senate of                     Leite de Lisboa , UCRL ) on the following questions :
the Finanzgericht Miinchen ( Munich Finance Court ) of
20 September 1995 , which was received at the Court
Registry on 9 November 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in                   1 . are the 'charges ' described, which have the
the case of Elisabeth Blasi v. Finanzamt Miinchen I on the                         characteristics of taxes described above ('), contrary to
 following questions :                                                             Article 95 of the Treaty of Rome ?
 1 . Is Article 13 ( B ) ( b ) ( 1 ) of Council Directive 77/388/EEC        2 . Are they to be regarded as charges having an effect
        of 1 7 May 1 977 on the harmonization of the laws of the                   equivalent to a customs duty on imports, prohibited by
        Member States relating to turnover taxes ( Sixth VAT                       Articles 9 and 12 of that Treaty ?
        Directive ) (') to be interpreted as meaning that the
        provision of accommodation ... in the hotel sector or in
        sectors with a similar function consists solely in the               3 . Are they to be regarded as turnover tax within the
        short-term accommodation of guests ?                                       meaning fo Article 33 of the Sixth Directive ( 2 ), without
 ---pagebreak--- 30 . 12 . 95                EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 351 /9
         prejudice to Article 378 of the Act of Accession ( ) or                 ( a ) is the specific object of the rights attaching to a
         any other Community legislation ?                                               trade-mark to be regarded as including the power
                                                                                conferred on the proprietor of a trade-mark under
(') Charges on milk products at the marketing stage, whether of                          national law to oppose , with regard to alcoholic drinks
       domestic origin or imported , intended for public consumption ,                   manufactured by him, the removal by a third party of
        levied by Iroma .                                                                labels affixed by the proprietor on bottles and on the
( 2 ) Council Directive 77/388/EEC, OJ No L 145 , p . 1 .                                packaging containing them, and bearing his mark, after
n oi No L 302 , 15 . 11 . 1985 , p . 23 .                                                the drinks have been placed by him on the Community
                                                                                market in that packaging, and the subsequent
                                                                                re-application of those labels by that third party or their
                                                                                replacement by similar labels, without thereby in some
                                                                                way damaging the original condition of the product ?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supremo Tribunal                       ( b ) In so far as the labels are replaced by other similar
Administrativo ( Second Chamber — Fiscal Matters ) by                                    labels, is the position different where the third party
judgment of that court of 19 October 1995 in the case of                                 omits the indication ' pure ' appearing on the original
Fabrica de Queijo Eru Portuguesa Lda. against Ministerio                                 labels and/or, as the case may be, replaces the
                       Publico and Fazenda Publica                                       importer's name with another name ?
                              ( Case C-348/95 )
                                  ( 95/C 351 /14 )                                ( c ) If question ( a ) falls to be answered in the affirmative ,
                                                                                but the proprietor of the trade-mark avails himself of
                                                                                the power referred to in that question in order to
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                  prevent the third party from removing the
 European Communities by judgment of the Supremo                                          identification marks which the trade-mark proprietor
Tribunal Administrativo ( Supreme Administrative Court )                                 has affixed on or underneath the labels in order to
 ( Second Chamber — Fiscal Matters ) of 19 October 1995 ,                                enable the trade-mark proprietor to detect shortfalls
 which was received at the Court Registry on 13 November                                 within his sales organization and thus to combat
 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Fabrica de                                parallel trade in his products , must such an exercise of
 Queijo Eru Portuguesa Lda . against Ministerio Publico and                               the trade-mark right be regarded as a 'disguised
 Fazenda Publica on the following questions :                                             restriction on trade between Member States ' aimed at
                                                                                achieving an artificial compartmentalization of the
  1 . having regard to the facts deemed to have been proven in                            markets ?
         the present judgment and the applicable Community
          legislation , are the goods in question ( cheese ) (') to be             ( d ) To what extent is the answer to . question ( c ) affected
         classified under subheading 0406 90 1 1 of the Common                            where the trade-mark proprietor has affixed those
          Customs Tariff ( CCT ) nomenclature ( 2 )?                                      identification marks either pursuant to a legal
                                                                                obligation or voluntarily , but in any event with a view
 2 . If not, under which tariff heading should they be                                    to making a 'product recall ' possible and/or in order to
          classified ?                                                                    limit his product liability and/or to combat
                                                                                counterfeiting, or, as the case may be , solely in order to
  (') As described in footnote 2 of the information notice for Case                       combat parallel trade ?
         C- 164/95 , published in OJ No C 189 of 22 . 7. 1995 , p. 12 .
  ( 2 ) OJ No L 345 of 31 . 12 . 1994 .
                                                                                Action brought on 10 November 1995 by the Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
  Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der                                                    Luxembourg
  Nederlanden by judgment of that court of 3 November                                                       (Case C-350/95 )
   1995 in the case of Frits Loendersloot v. George Ballantine                                                ( 95/C 351 / 16 )
                           & Son Ltd and Others
                                ( Case C-349/95 )                                   An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
                                    ( 95/C 351 / 15 )                               brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                                Communities on 10 November 1995 by the Commission of
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                           the European Communities , represented by Dimitrios
   European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad der                            Gouloussis, Legal Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address
   Nederlanden ( Supreme Court of the Netherlands ) of                              for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de
   3 November 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry                       la Cruz, of the Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
   on 13 November 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case
   of Frits Loendersloot v. George Ballantine & Son Ltd on the                      The Commission of the European Communities claims that
   following questions :                                                            the Court should :


title: Case C-614/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 30 November 2011 — Niederösterreichische Landes-Landwirtschaftskammer v Anneliese Kuso

text:
               17.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/8

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 30 November 2011 — Niederösterreichische Landes-Landwirtschaftskammer v Anneliese Kuso
   (Case C-614/11)
   2012/C 80/10
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberster Gerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Niederösterreichische Landes-Landwirtschaftskammer

      Defendant: Anneliese Kuso

      Question referred

   Does Article 3(1)(a) and (c) of Directive 76/207/EEC, (1) as amended by Directive 2002/73/EC, preclude national legislation under which discrimination on grounds of sex in connection with the termination of an employment relationship which is effected solely by lapse of time pursuant to a fixed-term individual employment contract entered into before the entry into force of the above directive (in this case before Austria’s accession to the European Union) is to be examined not on the basis of a contractual provision stipulating the fixed term to be a ‘condition governing dismissal’ but only in connection with the rejection of the request for a contract extension as a ‘condition governing recruitment’?

      (1)  Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions OJ L 39, 14.2.1976, p. 40, and amended by Directive 2002/73/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 23 September 2002.


title: Case C-239/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 1 July 2009 — SEYDALAND Vereinigte Agrarbetriebe GmbH & Co. v BVVG Bodenverwertungs- und –verwaltungs GmbH.

text:
               12.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/21

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 1 July 2009 — SEYDALAND Vereinigte Agrarbetriebe GmbH & Co. v BVVG Bodenverwertungs- und –verwaltungs GmbH.
   (Case C-239/09)
   2009/C 220/40
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht Berlin

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: SEYDALAND Vereinigte Agrarbetriebe GmbH & Co

      Defendant: BVVG Bodenverwertungs- und –verwaltungs GmbH

      Question referred

   Does Paragraph 5(1) points 2 and 3 of the FlächenerwerbsVO (Land Purchase Order), which was passed in application of Paragraph 4(3) point 1 of the AusglLeistG (Compensation Act) — ‘Where there are regional valuations of arable and pasture land, the value should be determined according to them. The regional valuations are published by the Bundesminister der Finanzen (Federal Finance Minister) in the Bundesanzeiger (Federal Gazette)’ — infringe Article 87 EC Treaty?