title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Østre Landsret by a decision of that court of 4 June 1998 in the case of Birgitte Jørgensen v. Foreningen af Speciallæger and Sygesikringens Forhandlingsudvalg (Case C-226/98)

text:
5.9.98                 EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 278/15
     these provisions, which list exhaustively the types of                 of occupational conditions to be undertaken in an
     sickness insurance allowed, do not cover all potential                 equal treatment case should be made by way of an
     circumstances and are therefore too restrictive,                       overall assessment of all the factors en bloc or by way
                                                                            of a point-for-point comparison as in equal pay cases.
Ð Incorrect transposition of the three directives into
     national law as regards verification of continued                      It can be assumed in answering the question that
     sickness insurance cover                                               the transformationsmodel' (reorganisation scheme
                                                                            for medical specialists' practices, hereinafter the
     Whilst, under Article 3 of Directives 90/364/EEC and                   reorganisation scheme')/agreement assessed en bloc
     90/365/EEC and under Article 4 of Directive 93/96/                     and as a whole is neutral as regards sex in both its
     EEC, a right of residence can be revoked when the                      effect and purpose.
     person concerned no longer meets the conditions laid
     down, in particular that regarding sickness insurance
     cover, that provision cannot be construed so as                        It can further be assumed that the reorganisation
     to allow active and constant monitoring by the                         scheme/agreement contains provisions which, viewed
     authorities responsible for issuing residence permits                  in isolation, result in sex bias, inasmuch as it is noted
     of the position of the beneficiaries of Directives 90/                 that that biased effect, with regard to some provisions,
     364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC. Any other                           is predominantly experienced by female medical
     approach would be contrary, not only to those                          specialists and, with regard to other provisions, is
     Directives, but, more fundamentally, to the principles                 predominantly       experienced       by     male    medical
     embodied in Article 8a of the EC Treaty.                               specialists.
(1) Council Directive 90/364/EEC on the right of residence (OJ         2. If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative, a
    L 180, 13.7.1990, p. 26).                                               ruling is requested as to how far considerations
(2) Council Directive 90/365/EEC on the right of residence for
                                                                            relating to budgetary safeguards, savings and planning
    employees and self-employed persons who have ceased their
    occupational activity (OJ L 180, 13.7.1990, p. 28).                     as regards medical practices may be treated as
(3) Council Directive 93/96/EEC on the right of residence for               objective and valid considerations such as to make it
    students (OJ L 317, 18.12.1993, p. 59).                                 acceptable that proportionately more women than
                                                                            men are affected by the provision in question.
                                                                       3. In view of the applicant's age (she was born in 1939),
                                                                            can the consideration for goodwill which the applicant
                                                                            should obtain when she gives up her practice on
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the éstre Landsret                    reaching retirement age be likened to an employee's
by a decision of that court of 4 June 1998 in the case of                   pension savings?
Birgitte Jùrgensen v. Foreningen af Speciallñger and Syge-
                 sikringens Forhandlingsudvalg
                         (Case C-226/98)                               4. If the Court of Justice replies to question 3 in
                                                                            the affirmative, clarification is sought as to the
                           (98/C 278/24)                                    repercussions for the answer to question 1 if one
                                                                            aspect of the disadvantage to which the provision in
                                                                            question gives rise is lower consideration for goodwill
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      when a practice is relinquished, and thereby worse
European Communities by order of the éstre Landsret                         pension insurance, if account is taken of the fact that
(Eastern Regional Court) of 4 June 1998, which was                          in Case C-297/93 Grau-Hupka [1994] ECR 5535,
received at the Court Registry on 24 June 1998, for a                       paragraph 27, it was held that the Member States are
preliminary ruling in the case of Birgitte Jùrgensen v. Fore-               not obliged to grant advantages in respect of old-age
ningen af Speciallñger and Sygesikringens Forhandlings-                     pension schemes to persons who have brought-up
udvalg on the following questions:                                          children or to provide benefit entitlements where
                                                                            employment has been interrupted in order to bring up
                                                                            children.
1. The Court of Justice is asked to clarify how
     an assessment as to whether there is indirect
     discrimination on grounds of sex should be                        (1) On the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for
     undertaken in a case concerning equal treatment under                 men and women as regards access to employment, vocational
     Council Directive 76/207/EEC (1) of 9 February 1976                   training and promotion, and working conditions (OJ L 39,
                                                                           14.2.1976, p. 40).
     and Council Directive 86/613/EEC (2) of 11 December
                                                                       (2) On the application of the principle of equal treatment between
     1986.                                                                 men and women engaged in an activity, including agriculture,
                                                                           in a self-employed capacity, and on the protection of self-
                                                                           employed women during pregnancy and motherhood (OJ
     In view of the fact that under the settled case-law of                L 359, 19.12.1986, p. 56).
     the Court of Justice in equal pay cases a comparison
     should be made on a point-for-point-basis,
     clarification is requested as to whether the comparison


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by Klagenævnet for Udbud, by an order of 15 July 1998 in the case of Unitron Scandinavia A/S and 3-S A/S, Danske Svineproducenters Serviceselskab v. Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri (Case C-275/98)

text:
5.9.98                 EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 278/29
31 March 1998, which were received at the Court                       Action brought on 17 July 1998 by the Commission of the
Registry on 20 July 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the                 European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain
cases of Salvat Editores SA and J. CompanÄ Calbuig                                              (Case C-274/98)
(C-265/98), Salvat Editores SA and G. Caminati (C-266/
98), OceÂano Grupo Editorial SA and R. Bogas CardenÄosa                                          (98/C 278/54)
(Case C-267/98), OceÂano Grupo Editorial SA and M.
Casas MingueÂlez (C-268/98), Planeta CreÂdito SA and A.
Villar Castelao (C-269/98), Artel SA and P. López Aznar               An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought
(C-270/98), Salvat Editores SA and J. A. Serrano Garrido              before the Court of Justice on 17 July 1998 by the
(C-271/98), and Artel SA and F. Arencom Salazar (C-272/               Commission of the European Communities, represented
98).                                                                  by Eric Gippini Fournier and Francisco de Sousa Fialho,
                                                                      of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for
                                                                      service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
                                                                      Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
The grounds of the order for reference and the question
on which a ruling is sought by Juzgado de Primera
Instancia No 35, Barcelona, are similar to those in Joined            The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:
Cases C-240/98 to C-244/98 (1).
                                                                      Ð declare that, by failing to establish action programmes
                                                                           pursuant to Article 5 of Council Directive 91/676/EEC
( ) See p. 21 of this Official Journal.
 1
                                                                           of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of
                                                                           waters against pollution caused by nitrates from
                                                                           agricultural sources (1), the Kingdom of Spain has
                                                                           failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty;
                                                                      Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof
by order of that court of 14 May 1998 in the case of                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
      Hans-Josef Schlebusch against Hauptzollamt Trier
                         (Case C-273/98)                              The binding nature of the third paragraph of Article 189
                                                                      and of Article 5 of the EC Treaty means that Member
                           (98/C 278/53)                              States must adopt the measures necessary to give effect to
                                                                      the Directive before the end of the period appointed for
                                                                      that purpose. Since the initial designation of vulnerable
                                                                      zones was to be effected within two years after
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                notification of the Directive (Article 3(2)), the period for
European Communities by order of the Seventh Senate of                drawing up the action programmes provided for in
the Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court) of 14 May                 Article 5 expired in December 1995.
1998, received at the Court Registry on 20 July 1998, for
a preliminary ruling in the case of Hans-Josef Schlebusch
                                                                      (1) OJ L 375, 31.12.1991, p. 1; corrigendum: OJ L 92,
against Hauptzollamt (Principal Customs Office) Trier on                  16.4.1993, p. 51.
the following question:
Is the first sentence of Article 3a(3) of Council Regulation
(EEC) No 857/84 (1), as amended by Regulation (EEC)
No 1639/91 (2), to be interpreted as meaning that a milk
                                                                      Reference for a preliminary ruling by Klagenñvnet
producer is to be allocated a definitive special reference
                                                                      for Udbud, by an order of 15 July 1998 in the case
quantity even where, in the period laid down in that
                                                                      of Unitron Scandinavia A/S and 3-S A/S, Danske
provision, he did not use the special reference quantity
                                                                      Svineproducenters Serviceselskab v. Ministeriet for
provisionally allocated to him for a corresponding increase
                                                                                Fùdevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri
in his milk production, but temporarily transferred to
another business that part of his milk quota corresponding                                      (Case C-275/98)
to the original reference quantity held by his business in                                       (98/C 278/55)
addition to the provisionally allocated special reference
quantity?
                                                                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                      European Communities by an order of Klagenñvnet for
( ) Council Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 adopting general rules
 1
    for the application of the levy referred to in Article 5c of      Udbud (Danish Procurement Review Board), which was
    Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk products          received at the Court Registry on 20 July 1998, for a
    sector (OJ L 90, 1.4.1984, p. 13).                                preliminary ruling in the case of Unitron Scandinavia A/S
(2) OJ L 150, 15.6.1991, p. 35.                                       and 3-S A/S, Danske Svineproducenters Serviceselskab v.
                                                                      Ministeriet for Fùdevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri (Ministry
                                                                      of Foodstuffs, Agriculture and Fisheries) on the following
                                                                      questions:
 ---pagebreak--- C 278/30               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      5.9.98
Ð Does Article 2(2) of Council Directive 93/36/EEC of                     alternative forms of energy, tolls for crossing the Tagus
     14 June 1993 coordinating procedures for the award                   bridge in Lisbon and, finally, agricultural tools and
     of public supply contracts (1) still have an independent             implements, the Portuguese Republic has infringed
     meaning after the adoption of Council Directive 92/                  Article 12 and Article 28(2) of Council Directive 77/
     50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination                  388/EEC (1) (the sixth VAT Directive), as amended by
     of procedures for the award of public service                        Directive 92/77/EEC (2) on the approximation of VAT
     contracts (2) (as both amended by European Parliament                rates,
     and Council Directive 97/52/EC (3))?
Ð If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, does the              Ð order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
     provision accordingly mean that, where a contracting
     authority entrusts the administration of a pig
     eartagging scheme to a private undertaking which is              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     not a contracting authority, the contracting authority
     should stipulate, on the one hand, that the
     undertaking should comply with the prohibition
     against discrimination on the ground of nationality in           Pursuant to Article 12(3) of the sixth VAT Directive, as
     public supply contracts which the undertaking awards             amended by Directive 92/77/EEC, the Member States are
     to third parties and, on the other hand, that the                to apply a standard rate, which may not be less than
     procurement of goods linked to the scheme should be              15 %. As is clear from Article 12(3)(a) and (b), the
     put out to public tender if the value of the goods to be         Member States may apply either one or two reduced rates
     procured exceeds the threshold value in Directive 93/            to the transactions referred to in Annex H to Directive 92/
     36/EEC?                                                          77/EEC. By applying reduced rates to transactions not
                                                                      referred to in that Annex (wines, machines and equipment
                                                                      for exploiting alternative forms of energy and agricultural
(1) OJ L 199, 9.8.1993, p. 1.                                         tools and implements) the Portuguese Republic has
(2) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, p. 1.
                                                                      infringed Article 12.
(3) Directive 97/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the
    Council of 13 October 1997, amending Directives 92/50/EEC,
    93/36/EEC and 93/37/EEC concerning the coordination of
    procedures for the award of public service contracts, public
                                                                      As regards the tolls for crossing the Tagus bridge in
    supply contracts and public works contracts (OJ L 328,
    28.11.1997, p. 1).
                                                                      Lisbon, Article 28(2)(a) of the sixth Directive, in
                                                                      conjunction with subparagraph (d), does not, contrary to
                                                                      the view advanced by the Portuguese authorities, allow the
                                                                      introduction after 1 January 1991 of a new reduced rate
                                                                      at the time of withdrawal, at a later stage, of the reduced
                                                                      rate in force on that date.
Action brought on 20 July 1998 by the Commission of the               (1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.
  European Communities against the Portuguese Republic                (2) OJ L 316, 31.10.1992, p. 1.
                        (Case C-276/98)
                         (98/C 278/56)
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
on 20 July 1998 by the Commission of the European                     Action brought on 21 July 1998 by the French Republic
Communities, represented by Teresa Figueira and Enrico                   against the Commission of the European Communities
Traversa, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an                                    (Case C-277/98)
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                                   (98/C 278/57)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                      An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
Ð declare that, by keeping in force or introducing a                  the European Communities on 21 July 1998 by the French
     reduced rate of 5 % for the products listed in points            Republic, represented by Kareen Rispal-Bellanger,
     1.8, 2.11, 2.19 and 3.8 of Annex I to the Código do              Assistant Director for International Economic Law and
     IVA (VAT Code) (Decree-Law No 394-B/84 of                        Community Law, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and
     26 December 1984, as amended by Law No 2/92 of                   Christina Vasak, Assistant Secretary for Foreign Affairs,
     9 March 1992 and by Law No 39-B/94 of                            acting as Agents, with an address for service in
     27 December 1994), which relate, respectively, to                Luxembourg at the French Embassy, 8b boulevard
     wines, machines and equipment for exploiting                     Joseph II.


title: Case T-691/15: Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2017 — Marcas Costa Brava v EUIPO — Excellent Brands JMI (Cremcaffé by Julius Meinl) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark Cremcaffé by Julius Meinl — Earlier EU figurative mark café crem — Relative ground for refusal — Lack of genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               13.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/29

         Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2017 — Marcas Costa Brava v EUIPO — Excellent Brands JMI (Cremcaffé by Julius Meinl)
   (Case T-691/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark Cremcaffé by Julius Meinl - Earlier EU figurative mark café crem - Relative ground for refusal - Lack of genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 078/39)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Marcas Costa Brava, SL (Sils, Spain) (represented by: E. Manresa Medina and J. Manresa Medina, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Excellent Brands JMI Ltd (Baar, Switzerland) (represented by: D. Majer, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 September 2015 (Case R 2756/2014-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Marcas Costa Brava and Excellent Brands JMI.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Marcas Costa Brava, SL, to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 48, 8.2.2016.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 9 July 2003 in Case T-219/01: Commerzbank AG v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Application for access to documents — Decision of the Hearing Officer — Admissibility)

text:
18.10.2003            EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 251/11
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               of the Hearing Officer's decision of 16 August 2001 refusing
                                                                         to allow the applicant access to certain documents concerning
                          of 9 July 2003                                 the closure of the proceeding in Case COMP/E-1/37.919 —
                                                                         bank fees for currency exchange in the Euro zone, initiated
in Case T-219/01: Commerzbank AG v Commission of                         against other banks — the Court of First Instance (Fifth
                the European Communities (1)                             Chamber), composed of R. García-Valdecasas, President,
                                                                         P. Lindh and J. D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made
(Action for annulment — Application for access to docu-                  an order on 9 July 2003, in which it:
ments — Decision of the Hearing Officer — Admissibility)
                         (2003/C 251/21)
                                                                         1.   Dismisses the action as inadmissible.
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                         2.   Orders the applicant to bear its own and the defendant's costs.
In Case T-219/01: Commerzbank AG, established in Frankfurt
am Main (Germany), represented by H. Satzki and B. Maassen,
lawyers, against the Commission of the European
Communities (Agent: S. Rating) — application for annulment               (1) OJ C 3 of 5.1.02.
of the Hearing Officer's decision of 17 August 2001 refusing
to allow the applicant access to certain documents concerning
the closure of the proceeding in Case COMP/E-1/37.919 —
bank fees for currency exchange in the Euro zone, initiated
against other banks — the Court of First Instance (Fifth
Chamber), composed of R. García-Valdecasas, President,
P. Lindh and J. D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made           ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
an order on 9 July 2003, in which it:                                                                 INSTANCE
                                                                                of 5 August 2003
1.   Dismisses the action as inadmissible.                               in Case T-158/03 R: Industria Químicas del Vallés, SA v
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
2.   Orders the applicant to bear its own and the defendant's costs,     (Interlocutory proceedings — Application to suspend applica-
     including the costs of the interlocutory proceedings in Case        tion — Prima facie case — Urgency — Weighing of interests)
     T-219/01 R.
                                                                                (2003/C 251/23)
(1) OJ C 369 of 22.12.01.                                                                   (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                         In Case T-158/03 R: Industria Químicas del Vallés, SA, estab-
                                                                         lished in Barcelona (Spain), represented by C. Fernández
                                                                         Vicién, P. González-Espejo and J. Sabater Marotias, lawyers,
                                                                         against Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (FIFTH                              B. Doherty and S. Pardo Quintillán) — application to suspend
                           CHAMBER)                                      application of Commission Decision 2003/308/EC of 2 May
                                                                         2003 concerning the non-inclusion of metalaxyl in Annex I to
                          of 9 July 2003                                 Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of author-
                                                                         isations granted to plant-protection products containing this
in Case T-250/01: Dresdner Bank AG v Commission of                       active substance (OJ 2003 L 113, p. 8), the President of the
                the European Communities (1)                             Court made an order on 5 August 2003, the operative part of
                                                                         which is as follows:
(Action for annulment — Application for access to docu-
ments — Decision of the Hearing Officer — Admissibility)
                         (2003/C 251/22)                                 1.   The interlocutory application is dismissed;
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                         2.   The costs are reserved.
In Case T-250/01: Dresdner Bank AG, established in Frankfurt
am Main (Germany), represented by W. Bosch and M. Hirsch,
lawyers, against the Commission of the European
Communities (Agent: S. Rating) — application for annulment


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) of 13 March 1997 in Case C-358/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura di Pordenone): Tommaso Morellato v. Unità Sanitaria Locale (USL) No 11, Pordenone (Articles 30 and 36 of the Treaty - Composition of bread - Maximum moisture content, minimum ash content and prohibition of certain ingredients)

text:
10 . 5 . 97            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 142/ 1
                                                                  I
                                                            (Information)
                                              COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                        COURT OF JUSTICE
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons
                         (Fifth Chamber)                              and to members of their families moving within the
                                                                      Community, as amended and updated by Council
                        of 13 March 1997                              Regulation (EEC) No 2001 /83 of 2 June 1983 relating to
in Case C-131/95 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from            unemployment benefit, and in particular Article 71 (1 )
the Nederlandse Raad van State ): P. J. Huijbrechts v.                (a) (ii), read in conjunction with Article 13, are to be
Commissie voor de Behandeling van Administratieve Ge                 interpreted as meaning that where, in the State of last
schillen ingevolge Artikel 41 der Algemene Bijstandswet in            employment, the grant of an allowance following on from
                de Provincie Noord-Brabant (M                         an unemployment benefit is made subject to the condition
                                                                      that the frontier worker concerned has received
(Social security — Wholly unemployed frontier worker —                unemployment benefit for a given period, that State is
 Unemployment benefits in the competent Member State —                required to take into account unemployment benefit
                Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71)                          received by that worker in the State in which he resides in
                          ( 97/C 142/01 )
                                                                      accordance with Article 71 (1 ) (a) (ii), as though that
                                                                      benefit had been received in the former State.
                 (Language of the case: Dutch)                        (') OJ No C 159, 24 . 6 . 1995 .
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
           published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C- 13 1 /95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty from the Nederlandse Raad van State                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
( State Council, Netherlands), for a preliminary ruling in                                     ( First Chamber)
the proceedings pending before that court between P. J.
                                                                                of 13 March 1997
Huijbrechts and Commissie voor de Behandeling van Ad
ministratieve Geschillen ingevolge Artikel 41 der Algemene            in Case C-358/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
Bijstandswet in de Provincie Noord-Brabant — on the                   the Pretura di Pordenone ): Tommaso Morellato v. Unità
interpretation of Article 67 of Council Regulation ( EEC )                     Sanitaria Locale (USL) No 11 , Pordenone (')
No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social
security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed                (Articles 30 and 36 of the Treaty — Composition of bread
persons and to members of their families moving within                — Maximum moisture content, minimum ash content and
the Community, as amended and updated by Council                                    prohibition of certain ingredients)
Regulation ( EEC ) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983 ( OJ No                                             ( 97/C 142/02 )
L 230, 22 . 8 . 1983 , p. 6 ), and Article 6 of the EC Treaty
— the Court ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of: J. C.
Moitinho de Almeida , President of the Chamber, D. A. O.                               (Language of the case: Italian)
Edward ( Rapporteur), J. -P. Puissochet, P. Jann and M.
Wathelet, Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate-General; L.
Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
judgment on 13 March 1997, in which it has ruled:                               published in the European Court Reports)
 The provisions of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71                In Case C-358/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security                 of the EC Treaty from the Pretura di Pordenone ( Italy ) for
 ---pagebreak--- No C 142/2               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     10 . 5 . 97
a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before                  provisions for the implementation of Regulation ( EEC )
that court between Tommaso Morellato and Unità Sanita                  No 1999/85 on inward processing relief arrangements ( OJ
ria    Locale    (USL )     No    11 ,  Pordenone    —   on   the       No L 351 , 12 . 12 . 1986 , p. 1 ) — the Court ( Fifth
interpretation of Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty —                 Chamber ), composed of: J. C. Moitinho de Almeida,
the Court ( First Chamber ), composed of: L. Sevón,                     President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann ( Rapporteur ),
President of the Chamber, D. A. O. Edward ( Rapporteur )                D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet and M. Wathelet,
and P. Jann, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate                  Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate-General; L.
General ; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on                  Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
 13 March 1997, in which it has ruled:                                  judgment on 13 March 1997, in which it has ruled :
 1 . The application to products lawfully manufactured                  Consideration of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3677/86
     and marketed in other Member States of national                    of 24 November 1986 laying down provisions for the
     legislation prohibiting the marketing of bread with a              implementation of Regulation (EEC) No 1999/85 on
     moisture content exceeding 34% or an ash content                   inward processing relief arrangements has not, in the light
     lower than 1,40% or containing bran constitutes a                  of the order for reference, disclosed any factor of such a
     measure having an effect equivalent to a quantitative              kind as to affect its validity.
     restriction within the meaning of Article 30 of the EC
     Treaty and is not justified under Article 36 of the                (') OJ No C 158 , 1 . 6 . 1996 .
     Treaty by the need to protect public health.
2 . The national court is under a duty to give full effect to
     Article 30 of the Treaty by disapplying on its own
     initiative provisions of national law conflicting with it.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(') OJ No C 16 , 20 . 1 . 1996 .                                                                  (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 13 March 1997
                                                                        in   Case   C-197/96: Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities v. French Republic (')
                                                                        (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                                                                        Equal treatment for men and women — Prohibition of
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                                 nightwork)
                          ( Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                ( 97/C 142/04 )
                         of 13 March 1997
in Case C-103/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                               (Language of the case: French)
the Tribunal d'Instance, Lille ): Directeur Général des
  Douanes et Droits Indirects v. Eridania Beghin-Say SA (')
(Customs duties — Inward processing arrangements —                        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
Equivalent compensation system — Cane sugar and beet                             published in the European Court Reports)
                                 sugar)
                            ( 97/C 142/03 )
                                                                        In Case C-197/96 : Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities ( Agent: Marie Wolfcarius ) v. French
                                                                        Republic ( Agents : Catherine de Salins and Claude
                 (Language of the case: French)                         Chavance ) — application for a declaration that by
                                                                        maintaining in force Article L 213-1 of the Code du
                                                                        Travail prohibiting nightwork by women in industry
                                                                        whereas no such prohibition exists in relation to men, the
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be          French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
          published in the European Court Reports)                      Article   5  (1)   of 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
In Case C-103/96 : reference to the Court under Article 177             employment, vocational training and promotion, and
of the EC Treaty from the Tribunal d'Instance ( District                working conditions ( OJ No L 39 , 14 . 2 . 1976 , p. 40 ) —
Court), Lille, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings              the Court ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of: J. C. Moitinho
pending before that court between Directeur General des                 de Almeida, President of the Chamber, L. Sevón, D. A. O.
Douanes et Droits Indirects and Eridania Beghin-Say SA                  Edward ( Rapporteur), J. -P. Puissochet and P. Jann, Judges;
— on the validity of Article 9 of Council Regulation                    G. Tesauro, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
( EEC ) No 3677/86 of 24 November 1986 laying down                      given a judgment on 13 March 1997, in which it:


title: Case T-231/05: Action brought on 15 June 2005 by Corsica Ferries France against Commission of the European Communities

text:
               20.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/30

         Action brought on 15 June 2005 by Corsica Ferries France against Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-231/05)
   (2005/C 205/55)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 15 June 2005 by Corsica Ferries France, established in Bastia (France), represented by Stéphane Rodrigues and Alice Jaume, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               Annul the Commission Decision of 16 March 2005 concerning the second tranche of restructuring aid paid by France to National Maritime Corse-Méditerranée (SNCM);

               2.

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   This action is brought against Commission Decision C(2004)4751 final of 16 March 2005 declaring payment of the second tranche of aid given by France to Société Nationale Maritime Corse-Méditerranée (SNCM) for restructuring to be compatible, with certain conditions, with the common market (Aid No C 58/2002, ex N 118(2002)). That decision is a follow-up to the decision of 9 July 2003, which authorised subject to conditions the first tranche of the restructuring aid at issue.
   In support of its claims, the applicant pleads the infringement of Article 87 of the EC Treaty and the rules adopted for its application which are relevant in this case, namely the conditions imposed by the decision of 9 July 2003 and the conditions arising from the Commission's 1997 Community guidelines on State aid to maritime transport (1) and the Commission's 1999 Community Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty (2), as applicable at the time when the examination procedure for the contested aid was opened.
   The applicant states in that connection that, contrary to the decision of 9 July 2003, SNCM's shares in the Compagnie Corse Meditérranée were not sold. Furthermore, SNCM continued to apply a pricing policy aiming to offer lower prices than its competitors.
   Furthermore, as regards the abovementioned Community guidelines, the restructuring plan submitted by the French Republic was not fully implemented. In addition, the amount of aid was not limited to the strict minimum.

      (1)  OJ C 205 of 5.7.1997, p. 5

      (2)  OJ C 288 of 9.10.1999, p. 2


title: Case T-81/07: Action brought on 14 March 2007 — KG Holding (in liquidation) v Commission

text:
               26.5.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 117/23

         Action brought on 14 March 2007 — KG Holding (in liquidation) v Commission
   (Case T-81/07)
   (2007/C 117/37)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: Jan Rudolf Maas, acting in his capacity as receiver in the liquidation proceedings relating to K.G. Holding N.V. (Rotterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: G. van der Wal and T. Boesman, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the Commission's decision of 19 July 2006 in Case C 30/2005;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant is challenging Commission Decision 2006/939/EC of 19 July 2006 on the aid measure notified by the Netherlands for KG Holding NV (1).
   The aid measure mentioned related to restructuring aid which the Netherlands wished to grant to KG Holding NV by converting a previously approved rescue loan and the interest due thereon into equity capital. In the contested decision, the Commission declares the aid measure, in the form of restructuring aid, to be incompatible with the common market.
   The Commission also ruled that the Netherlands had to recover from KG Holding NV and its subsidiary Kliq BV that portion of the aid which KG Holding NV had transferred to Kliq BV as a rescue loan and which had been converted into equity capital, and that the Netherlands were required to register with the receiver their claim against KG Holding NV and/or Kliq Reïntegratie as a creditor in the liquidation proceedings.
   In support of his application, the applicant submits, first, that the Commission committed errors of appraisal, as a result of which the contested decision is inadequately reasoned and at variance with Article 87(1) EC. The applicant claims in particular that the Commission erred in deciding that the Netherlands had to register with the receiver their claim in the amount of EUR 35.75 million against KG Holding and Kliq Reïntegratie as a creditor in the liquidation proceedings. It is, the applicant contends, unclear whether the Commission concluded in the contested decision, in regard to KG Holding, that there was unlawful aid in the amount of EUR 35.75 million that had to be claimed back by the Netherlands or whether what was in issue was rescue aid which the Commission approved in the contested decision on the basis of point 23(d) of the Community Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty (2). Further, it is alleged that the Commission, in its decision of 16 December 2003 (3), had agreed that this amount was to be used to finance the redundancies of staff members and the redemption of the redundant contracts of Kliq Reïntegratie, and that Kliq Reïntegratie was thereafter to be placed in liquidation.
   The applicant submits, second, that the Commission erred in its claim regarding the full payment of KG Holding's shares in Kliq BV through set-off of the obligation to make full payment against KG Holding's claim against Kliq BV under the loan agreement. That, it is claimed, did not form any part of the decision of 5 August 2005 (4) which initiated the proceedings. The Commission, it is alleged, misused its powers and acted in a manner contrary to the rights of the defence and the principle of audi alteram partem.
   Third, it is alleged that the Commission wrongly failed to establish that the alleged aid might be liable to have an adverse effect on competition and trade between Member States; at any rate, the Commission's findings in this regard are not adequately reasoned.
   Fourth, the Commission is alleged to have erroneously determined that the alleged aid of EUR 9.25 million must be recovered by the Netherlands from KG Holding and Kliq BV. It is submitted that the Commission also erred in finding that the alleged aid of EUR 35.75 million had to recovered from KG Holding and/or Kliq Reïntegratie by registering those claims in the liquidation proceedings. By reason of the liquidation of KG Holding, Kliq Reïntegratie and Kliq BV, recovery of the amounts of alleged aid will, it is argued, be permanently impossible and has in any event become pointless in the sense that recovery through registration in the liquidation of those companies is unnecessary and, indeed, has become entirely superfluous for the purpose of putting an end to the distortion of competition.
   Fifth, it is argued that the Commission erred in its statements and findings in law with regard to a current-account credit facility of EUR 17 million already provided by the Netherlands to KG Holding when the latter was established and in accordance with the rules on State aid and which did not form part of the measure under examination in the contested decision.
   In conclusion, the applicant alleges that the Commission erred in its decision that the Netherlands had to take all necessary measures to recover an amount of EUR 9.25 million from KG Holding, including interest from the date on which the individual portions of that amount had been made available to the recipients up to the date on which the money was actually repaid. That requirement, it is argued, is at variance with national bankruptcy law.

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 366, p. 40.

      (2)  OJ 1999 C 288, p. 2.

      (3)  Aid measure N 510/2003 — Rescue aid for Kliq Holding NV (OJ 2004 C 33, p. 8).

      (4)  State aid No C 30/2005 (ex N 78/2004) — Restructuring aid to KG Holding N.V. — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty (OJ 2005 C 280, p. 2).


title: Action brought on 29 May 1996 by G. van der Wal against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-83/96)

text:
 No C 233/ 16              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   10 . 8 . 96
 In this action the applicants challenge the following                        results in an infringement of Article 213 of the Fourth
 decisions :                                                                  ACP-EEC Convention .
                                                                          ') OJ No C 128 , 1 . 5 . 1996 , p . 3 .
 1 . The Commission's decision of 1 1 January 1996 ( SG(96 )              -) Case T-83/95 , OJ No C 137, 31 . 6 , 1 995 .
       D/ 1245 ), addressed to the Portuguese Government. By
       this decision the Commission authorized the Portuguese
       State aid ( fiscal incentive and training costs ) granted by
       the Portuguese Government to DAI for the
       establishment of a beet-sugar factory in Portugal . The
       Commission also decided not to investigate the                    Action brought on 29 May 1996 by G. van der Wal against
       investment aid , as it was granted by the Portuguese                     the Commission of the European Communities
       Government within the framework of Regulation ( EEC )                                      ( Case T-83 /96 )
       No 866/90 and Community co-financing.
                                                                                ( 96/C 233/28 )
      The applicants maintain that the decision is unlawful
       and erroneous for the following reasons :                                         (Language of the case: Dutcb)
      — the decision is inadequately and insufficiently                  An action against the Commission of the European
           reasoned ( Article 190 of the EC Treaty ),                    Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                         Instance of the European Communities on 29 May 1996 by
      — procedural requirements have not been observed :                 G. van der Wal , of Kraainem , Belgium , represented by P.
           notwithstanding the active participation of the               Bleeker and L. Y. J. M. Parret, of the Brussels Bar, with an
           applicants , they were not invited to take part in the       address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of A.
           procedure ; it is contrary to a fair and transparent         May, 31 Grand Rue .
           application of the State aid provisions to leave the
           applicants outside the administrative procedure .            The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                        — annul the Commission's decision of 29 March 1 996 ,
2.    The    Commission's       decision   of  19   March     1996           and
      ( VI/012420 ). By this decision the Commission informed
      the applicants of the rejection of their complaint and of         — order the Commission to bear the costs .
      the authorization of 11 January 1996 .
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
      The applicants consider that the decision is unlawful
      and erroneous for reasons similar to those put forward            On         the     basis        of        Commission Decision
      in Case T-83 /95 .                                                94/90/ECSC/EC/Euratom (') the applicant asked the
                                                                        Commission for copies of the letters it had sent to three
                                                                        national judicial bodies referred to in the 24th Report on
3 . The Commission's decision of 23 November 1995 ( Aid
                                                                        Competition ( 1994 ). That request was rejected by the
      No N832/95 ) not to raise an objection under Articles 92          contested decision .
      and 93 of the EC Treaty against aid for the marketing of
      agricultural products with the object of improving the            The applicant submits inter alia that :
      conditions of processing and marketing agricultural
      products .                                                        — the contested decision does not satisfy the requirement
                                                                             that reasons be given under Article 190 of the EC
      The applicants explain that at this stage of the procedure             Treaty,
      they do not have any information , apart from the
      publication of the authorization by the Commission ( OJ           — the 'protection of the public interest' may be invoked
      No C 128 , 1996 , p . 3 ). However, they cannot discount               only because of the particular circumstances of an
      the possibility that this authorization concerns the                   individual case , of which there was no mention by the
      inclusion of the beet-sugar sector in the national                     Commission in this instance,
      legislation for the application of Regulation ( EEC )
      No 866/90 . Should this be the case , they raise against          — the derogation for 'court proceedings ' relates to
      this decision all the pleas of law set out earlier in their            procedures in which the Commission is a party, and not
      application .                                                          the provision of information — which , moreover, was
                                                                             not confidential — to national courts,
Finally, the applicants submit that the State aid to DAI and
the Commission's decision not to take measures and initiate             — therê is no basis for the Commission's view that
the procedure requested by them and to authorize the aid                     disclosure of the letters would undermine cooperation
and/or not to raise any objections :                                         with national courts .
— is contrary to the Multilateral Agreements on Trade,                  C ) OJ No L 46 , 1994 , p . 58 .
     more specifically the Agreement on Agriculture
     ( Article 6 of Annex II ), and


title: Action brought on 25 November 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic (Case C-424/98)

text:
20.2.1999             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 48/9
van State (Council of State) of 19 November 1998,                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
received at the Court Registry on 23 November 1998, for
a preliminary ruling in the case of W. N. against
Staatssecretaris van FinancieÈn on the following questions:         (a) declare that the Italian Republic
1. Must the words a loss of tax' in Article 4(1)(a) of
                                                                        Ð by requiring family members of beneficiaries of
     Council Directive 77/799/EEC (1) be interpreted as
                                                                            Directive 90/364/EEC (1) to have resources
     meaning that the loss of tax in question necessarily
                                                                            one-third higher in amount than the minimum
     arises from an express act on the part of the
                                                                            which family members of beneficiaries of Directive
     competent authority of another Member State?
                                                                            90/365/EEC (2) must have;
2. How should the word abnormaal' in the Dutch
     version of that provision be interpreted in that                   Ð by limiting the methods of proof which may be
     connection?                                                            submitted and, in particular, by providing that
                                                                            certain documents must be issued or certified by
                                                                            the authorities of another Member State; and
3. If Article 4(1)(a) is not applicable, can Article 4(3) of
     the directive give rise to an obligation to exchange
     information spontaneously?                                         Ð by requiring students, who are citizens of other
                                                                            Member States, requesting recognition of their
                                                                            right of residence in Italy within the meaning of
(1) OJ L 336, 27.12.1977, p. 15.                                            Directive 93/96/EEC (3) and members of their
                                                                            family to guarantee to the Italian authorities that
                                                                            they have resources of a certain amount and, as
                                                                            regards the means to be used for that purpose, not
                                                                            clearly leaving the student a choice between
                                                                            making a declaration or such alternative means as
                                                                            are at least equivalent, and by not allowing the
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte di Appello
                                                                            declaration to be used where the student is
di Napoli by order of that court of 29 October 1998 in
                                                                            accompanied by members of his family
             the case brought by Alfredo Albore
                       (Case C-423/98)
                        (1999/C 48/17)                                  has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
                                                                        above-mentioned Council Directives 90/364/EEC (1),
                                                                        90/365/EEC (2) and 93/96/EEC (3);
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Corte di Appello
di Napoli (Appeal Court, Naples) of 29 October 1998,                (b) order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
which was received at the Court Registry on 25 November
1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case brought by
Alfredo Albore on a question as to the compatibility of
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
Article 18 of Law No 898/1976, as amended by Article 9
of Law No 104/1990, with Articles 6, 52 and 67 of the
Treaty.
                                                                    Ð The amount of family members' income
                                                                        The Commission considers that by requiring family
                                                                        members of beneficiaries of Directive 90/364/EEC to
                                                                        have resources one-third higher in amount than the
Action brought on 25 November 1998 by the Commission                    minimum which family members of beneficiaries of
 of the European Communities against the Italian Republic               Directive 90/365/EEC must have, the Italian Republic
                       (Case C-424/98)                                  has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive
                                                                        90/364/EEC.
                        (1999/C 48/18)
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before           Ð The documents which beneficiaries of
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                     Directives 90/364/EEC and 90/365/EEC
25 November 1998 by the Commission of the European                      must submit
Communities, represented by Antonio Aresu, of its Legal
Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,                    The Commission considers that, by limiting the
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                               methods of proof which may be submitted, and by
 ---pagebreak--- C 48/10               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                20.2.1999
    providing, in particular, that certain documents must          The Appellant claims that the Court should:
    be issued or certified in another Member State, the
    Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations          Ð set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance in
    under Directives 90/364/EEC and 90/365/EEC.                        so far as it annuls the Commission's decision of 6 April
                                                                       1995;
Ð The provisions on students' resources                            Ð order the applicant to bear Deutsche Post AG's costs.
                                                                   Deutsche Post AG continues to seek the form of order as
                                                                   that sought at first instance, i.e.
    The Commission considers that by requiring students,
    who are citizens of other Member States, and
    members of their family to guarantee to the Italian            Ð to dismiss the IECC's application;
    authorities that they have resources of a certain
    amount and, as regards the means to be used for that           Ð to order the IECC to pay the costs of the proceedings
    purpose, by not clearly leaving students a choice                  including Deutsche Post AG's costs.
    between making a declaration or such alternative
    means as are at least equivalent, and by not allowing          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    the declaration to be used where the student is
    accompanied by members of his family, the Italian
    Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under            The judgment of the Court of First Instance annulling the
    Directive 93/96/EEC.                                           Commission's decision of 6 April 1995 in so far as it
                                                                   concerns commercial physical ABA remail is based on an
                                                                   error of law. The Court of First Instance has infringed
(1) OJ L 180, 13.7.1990, p. 26.                                    Community law (Article 86 EC Treaty) by finding in
(2) OJ L 180, 13.7.1990, p. 28.                                    paragraph 105 of its judgment that interceptions of
(3) OJ L 317, 18.12.1993, p. 59.                                   commercial ABA remail constitute an abuse within the
                                                                   meaning of Article 86 of the Treaty.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 229, 2.9.1995, p. 22.
                                                                   (2) OJ C 351, 30.12.1995, p. 17.
Appeal brought on 30 November 1998 by Deutsche Post
AG against the judgment delivered on 16 September by
the Third Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court              Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supreme Court,
of First Instance of the European Communities in cases             Dublin, by order of that court of 23 July 1998, in the case
T-133/95 (1) and T-204/95 (2) between International                of H.M.I.L. Ltd (formerly Hibernia Meats International
Express Carriers Conference (IECC) and the Commission              Ltd) against the Minister for Agriculture, Food and
of the European Communities, supported by, in cases                                            Forestry
T-133/95 and T-204/95, the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland, Deutsche Post AG and The                                    (Case C-436/98)
         Post Office and, in case T-133/95, La Poste                                       (1999/C 48/20)
                      (Case C-428/98 P)
                                                                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                        (1999/C 48/19)
                                                                   European Communities by an order of the Supreme Court,
                                                                   Dublin, of 23 July 1998, which was received at the Court
                                                                   Registry on 3 December 1998, for a preliminary ruling in
                                                                   the case of H.M.I.L. Ltd (formerly Hibernia Meats
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 16 September           International Ltd) against the Minister for Agriculture,
1998 by the Third Chamber, Extended Composition, of                Food and Forestry, on the following questions:
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
in cases T-133/95 and T-204/95 between International
Express Carriers Conference (IECC) and the Commission              1.    Is Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1964/82 (1) and
of the European Communities, supported by, in case                       in particular Article 1 thereof, to be construed as
T-133/95 and T-204/95, the United Kingdom of Great                       meaning that trimmings of less than 100 grams,
Britain and Northern Ireland, Deutsche Post AG and                       when rolled up inside a cut of plate and flank from
The Post Office and, in case T-133/95, La Poste, was                     fresh or chilled hind quarters of adult male cattle,
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                      which rolled up cut is then wrapped, do or do not
Communities on 30 November 1998 by Deutsche                              qualify for Special Export Refunds pursuant to the
Post AG, Heinrich-von-Stephan-Straûe 1, D-53175 Bonn,                    said Regulation?
represented by Dirk Schroeder, Rechtsanwalt, Cologne,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                   2.    Is Regulation (EEC) No 1964/82 and in particular
Chambers of Loesch and Wolter, 11, Rue Goethe.                           Article 1 thereof, to be construed as meaning that


title: Action brought on 14 January 1998 by F against the European Parliament (Case T-17/98)

text:
C 94/34               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    28.3.98
Third, the Commission made incorrect observations on                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
market transparency. An independent expert report
annexed to the application for negative certification,                 Ð annul, or at least declare void, the decision contained
which showed that competition is promoted by increased                     in the defendant's letter of 14 October 1997 refusing
transparency, was ignored by the Commission. That                          the applicant's request for repayment of the
constitutes a serious defect in the determination of the                   Community tax paid by the applicant in respect of the
facts, which affected the outcome of the decision.                         period from 1 January 1989 to 31 September 1995
                                                                           inclusive,
Fourth, in the applicants' submission, Article 60 of the
ECSC Treaty pursues a system of complete transparency in               Ð in so far as may be necessary, declare void the decision
the field of prices and conditions of sale. If, according to               of the European Parliament to subject freelance
the Court of Justice, that applies to market transparency                  interpreters working for it to Community tax,
in the field of prices, then market transparency must all                  alternatively rule that that decision may not be relied
the more be permitted with respect to quantities delivered.                upon against the applicant for the purposes of
                                                                           deducting, in respect of the period from 1 January
Fifth, the fact that the Commission did not investigate the                1989 to 31 September 1995 inclusive, Community tax
market shares with the means usually available to it, as                   from the income earned by her from her activities as a
described in its Notice on the definition of relevant                     freelance interpreter working for the defendant,
market' (2), constitutes a serious defect in the
determination of the facts.                                            Ð in so far as may be necessary, declare void Article 8 of
                                                                           the agreement with the AIIC, alternatively rule that
Sixth, the applicants submit that the Commission                           that article may not be relied upon against the
infringed the second paragraph of Article 47 of the ECSC                   applicant for the purposes of deducting, in respect of
Treaty by informing the Government of the United States                    the period from 1 January 1989 to 31 September 1995
of America that it had no objections to the exchange of                    inclusive, Community tax from the income earned by
ECSC questionnaire 2Ð72. The applicants had not made                       her from her activities as a freelance interpreter
exchange of that questionnaire the subject of their                        working for the defendant,
notification, and according to the case-law business secrets
of the undertakings concerned must, on the basis of the                Ð order the defendant to repay the Community tax paid
general principle of which the procedural rules of                         by the applicant during the period from 1 January
competition law are an expression, receive especially                      1989 to 31 September 1995 inclusive, currently
extensive protection, which also means that the                            estimated by the applicant as amounting to ECU
undertakings concerned must be informed beforehand in                      17 309, together with interest at the annual rate of
an adequately reasoned decision, in order thus to be given                 8 % or at the legal rate applicable,
the opportunity to seek judicial protection before the
                                                                       Ð by way of subsidiary relief:
information is passed on.
                                                                           order the defendant to compensate the applicant for
Finally, the contested decision infringes the obligation to
                                                                           the damage, currently estimated to amount to BEF
state reasons under Article 15 of the ECSC Treaty, since it
                                                                           642 199, together with such further damage as may be
lacks a convincing statement of reasons on a number of
                                                                           specified, arising from additional claims by the Belgian
points.
                                                                           tax and/or social security authorities in relation to the
                                                                           period from 1 January 1989 to 31 September 1995
(1) OJ L 1, 3.1.1998, p. 10.
                                                                           inclusive during which the defendant retained
(2) OJ C 372, 9.12.1997, p. 5, at point 33 et seq.
                                                                           Community tax deducted from the applicant's income,
                                                                       Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Action brought on 14 January 1998 by F against the                     The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
                     European Parliament                               Case T-2/98.
                         (Case T-17/98)
                          (98/C 94/81)
                 (Language of the case: Dutch)
An action against the European Parliament was brought                  Action brought on 19 January 1998 by Peter Reichert
before the Court of First Instance of the European                                    against the European Parliament
Communities on 14 January 1998 by F, residing in                                               (Case T-18/98)
Brussels, represented by G. van der Wal, Advocaat with a                                        (98/C 94/82)
right of audience before the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden
(Supreme Court of the Netherlands), The Hague, and                                    (Language of the case: German)
L. Y. J. M. Parret, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May,                   An action against the European Parliament was brought
31 Grand-Rue.                                                          before the Court of First Instance of the European


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 1 February 1996 in Case C-308/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du Travail, Liège): Office National de l'Emploi v. Heidemarie Naruschawicus (Social security for migrant workers - Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Worker residing in a Member State other than the competent Member State - Unemployment benefit)

text:
4 . 5 . 96          I EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 133/ 1
                                                                I
                                                          (Information)
                                            COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                      COURT OF JUSTICE
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                    employed persons, to self-employed persons and to
                       ( Sixth Chamber)                                 members of their families moving within the
                                                                        Community, as codified by Council Regulation (EEC)
                      of 1 February 1996                                No 2001 /83 of 2 June 1983 must be interpreted as
in Case C-308/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from              meaning that the legislation applicable to a civil servant
the Cour du Travail, Liège ): Office National de l'Emploi               in the employ of one Member State working in the
               v. Heidemarie Naruschawicus ( 1 )                        territory of another Member State who, upon
(Social security for migrant workers — Council Regulation               termination ofhis employment contract, is retroactively
(EEC) No 1408/71 — Worker residing in a Member State                    deemed by the first Member State, by way oflegal fiction
other than the competent Member State — Unemployment                    intended to give him the right to unemployment benefit
                             benefit)                                   and cover by the sickness and invalidity-insurance
                                                                        legislation, to have worked as an ordinary employee and
                          96/C 133 /01
                                                                        not as a civil servant, must be determined on the basis of
                                                                        Article 13 (2) (d) of that Regulation .
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                    2 . Article 71 (1 ) (b) (i) of Regulation No 1408/71 must be
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be            interpreted as meaning that a person other than a
          published in the European Court Reports)                      frontier worker who, having been employed, is wholly
                                                                        umemployed, and who resides in the territory of a
                                                                        Member State other than the competent Member State,
                                                                        may obtain unemployment benefit from the competent
In Case C-308/94 — reference for a preliminary ruling from              State ifhe registers with the employment services of that
the Cour du Travail ( Labour Court ), Liège ( Belgium), in the          State as a person seeking employment and undergoes the
proceedings pending before that court between Office                    checks of those services.
National de l'Emploi and Heidemarie Naruschawicus —
the Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of C. N. Kakouris
( Rapporteur ), President of the Chamber, F. A.
Schockweiler, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray and
                                                                    (') OJ No C 386 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .
H. Ragnemalm, Judges; M. La Pergola, Advocate-General;
R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 1 February 1996 ,
the operative part of which is as follows :
1 . Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971
     on the application of social security schemes to


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance 21 March 2002 in Case T-131/99: Michael Hamilton Shaw and Timothy John Falla v Commission of the European Communities (Competition — Beer supply agreements — Individual exemption — Article 85(3) of the EC Treaty (now Article 81(3) EC))

text:
C 144/38                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       15.6.2002
1.    Orders that the fine imposed on the applicant by Article 3(a)       1.    Dismisses the application;
      of Commission Decision 1999/60/EC of 21 October 1998
      relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC Treaty
      (Case No IV/35.691/E-4: — Pre-Insulated Pipe Cartel) be             2.    Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and pay those of
      reduced to EUR 65 000 000;                                                the Commission;
2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;                         3.    Orders the intervener to bear its own costs.
3.    Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay 90 % of
      the costs incurred by the Commission;
                                                                          (1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.
4.    Orders the Commission to pay 10 % of its own costs.
(1) OJ C 121 of 1.5.1999.
                                                                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                                         20 March 2002
                           21 March 2002
                                                                          in Case T-175/99: UPS Europe SA v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
in Case T-131/99: Michael Hamilton Shaw and Timothy
John Falla v Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                          (Competition — Abuse of a dominant position — Postal
                                                                          sector — Service in the general economic interest — Use of
(Competition — Beer supply agreements — Individual                        income deriving from a reserved market — Acquisition of
exemption — Article 85(3) of the EC Treaty (now                           joint control of an undertaking active in the non-reserved
                         Article 81(3) EC))                                               market — Statement of reasons)
                          (2002/C 144/80)                                                          (2002/C 144/81)
                    (Language of the case: English)                                          (Language of the case: English)
In Case T-131/99, Michael Hamilton Shaw, residing in Wix-
ford, Alcester, Warwickshire (United Kingdom), and Timothy                In Case T-175/99, UPS Europe SA, established in Brussels
John Falla, residing in Brighton (United Kingdom), represented            (Belgium), represented by T. R. Ottervanger and D. Arts,
by J. H. Maitland-Walker, Solicitor, with an address for service          lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Com-
in Luxembourg, v Commission of the European Communities                   mission of the European Communities (Agents: B. Doherty
(Agents: P. Oliver, K. Wiedner and N. Khan), supported by                 and K. Wiedner), supported by Deutsche Post AG, established
Whitbread plc, established in London (United Kingdom),                    in Bonn (Germany), represented by J. Sedemund, lawyer, with
represented by N. Green QC and J. Flynn and M. Lowe,                      an address for service in Luxembourg: Application for the
Solicitors, with an address for service in Luxembourg: Appli-             annulment of Commission Decision SG (99) D/4155 of
cation for annulment of Commission Decision 1999/230/EC                   10 June 1999 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 8 June
of 24 February 1999 relating to a proceeding pursuant to                  1998 to the extent to which it relates to Article 82 EC and to
Article 85 of the EC Treaty (Case No IV/35.079/F3 —                       the partial acquisition of DHL International Ltd by Deutsche
Whitbread) (OJ 1999 L 88, p. 26), the Court of First Instance             Post AG, the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended
(Third Chamber), composed of: J. Azizi, President, K. Lenaerts            Composition), composed of: P. Mengozzi, President, R. Garcı́a-
and M. Jaeger, Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for           Valdecasas, V. Tiili, R. M. Moura Ramos and J. D. Cooke,
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 21 March 2002, in                  Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
which it:                                                                 given a judgment on 20 March 2002, in which it:


title: Case T-363/02: Action brought on 5 December 2002 by Muswellbrook Limited against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM)

text:
C 44/34               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         22.2.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 First Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 30 September
                                                                                2002 in case No R 19/2000-1, inasmuch as it declares
Applicant for Com-            NIKE INTERNATIONAL Ltd.                           that the opponent has failed to prove genuine use in the
munity trade mark:                                                              Community of the Spanish trade mark No 88222 to
                                                                                distinguish ready-to-wear and other items of clothing in
Community trade mark          The word mark ‘NIKE’ — appli-                     Class 25 during the five years preceding the publication
sought by the appli-          cation No 278028 for goods in                     of the application for a Community trade mark;
cation:                       Class 25 ‘clothing, footwear,
                              headgear’.                                  —     annul that decision in its entirety;
Proprietor of mark or         The applicant.                              —     agree to vary that decision so as to declare that an
sign right asserted in the                                                      assessment of and a ruling on the merits of the opposition
opposition proceedings:                                                         to registration of Community trade mark No 278093 is
                                                                                appropriate, to which end the Court’s judgment should
Mark or sign right assert-    The Spanish mixed trade mark
                                                                                declare that Community trade mark No 278093 is
ed in opposition:             No 88222, composed of the word                    refused, or, in the alternative, refer the case back to the
                              ‘NIKE’ together with the image of                 First Board of Appeal of the OHIM;
                              the Greek goddess of victory of
                              Samothrace, for products in
                              Class 25.                                   —     order the defendant and, where appropriate, the inter-
                                                                                vener to pay all the costs of the proceedings and those
Decision of Opposition        Refusal of application.                           incurred at the administrative stages of the opposition
Division:                                                                       and appeal proceedings.
Decision of Board of          Annulment of the decision of the
Appeal:                       Opposition Division and rejection
                              of the opposition.                          Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law:                 Improper or erroneous appli-
                              cation of Article 15(2)(a) and              The applicant seeking the Community trade mark, the pro-
                              Article 43(2) and (3) and of other
                                                                          prietor of the mark cited in opposition, the tenor of the
                              relevant provisions of Regulation
                                                                          decisions of the Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal
                              No 40/94 on the Community
                                                                          and the pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
                              trade mark.
                                                                          in Case T-362/02 (MUSWELLBROOK LIMITED v OHIM).
                                                                          The Community trade mark in respect of which registration is
                                                                          sought is the word mark ‘NIKE TOWN’ — application
                                                                          No 278093 in respect of goods in Class 25 ‘clothing, footwear
                                                                          and headgear’.
Action brought on 5 December 2002 by Muswellbrook
Limited against the Office for Harmonisation in the
                    Internal Market (OHIM)
                        (Case T-363/02)
                         (2003/C 44/65)
                                                                          Action brought on 5 December 2002 by Muswellbrook
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)                         Limited against the Office for Harmonisation in the
                                                                                Internal Market (OHIM)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                                     (Case T-364/02)
Market (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities on 5 December 2002 by
Muswellbrook Limited, established in Dublin (Ireland), rep-                                         (2003/C 44/66)
resented by J. Casulá Oliver, lawyer.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     declare incompatible with Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on
      the Community trade mark, in particular Article 15(2)(a)            An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
      and/or Article 42(2) and (3) thereof, the decision of the           Market (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance


title: Case T-80/17: Action brought on 6 February 2017 — Steiniger v EUIPO — ista Deutschland (IST)

text:
               10.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/43

         Action brought on 6 February 2017 — Steiniger v EUIPO — ista Deutschland (IST)
   (Case T-80/17)
   (2017/C 112/59)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Ingo Steiniger (Nümbrecht, Germany) (represented by: K. Schulze Horn, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: ista Deutschland GmbH (Essen, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant for registration of the trade mark at issue: The applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘IST’ — Application for registration No 10 673 812

      Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 December 2016 in Case R 2242/2015-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision and the decision of the Opposition Division of EUIPO of 24 September 2015;

               —

               vary the contested decision in such a way that the objection is rejected in its entirety;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs, including the costs incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8 of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Rule 20(6) of Regulation No 2868/95.


title: Case T-67/12: Judgment of the General Court of 4 June 2014  — Sina Bank v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Action for annulment — Measures against which no action may be brought — Inadmissibility — Rights of the defence)

text:
               21.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/14

         Judgment of the General Court of 4 June 2014 — Sina Bank v Council
   (Case T-67/12) (1)

   ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Action for annulment - Measures against which no action may be brought - Inadmissibility - Rights of the defence))
   2014/C 235/18
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Sina Bank (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: B. Mettetal and C. Wucher-North, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and D. Gicheva, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   APPLICATION for annulment, first, of Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 71), in so far as it maintained, after review, the listing of the applicant’s name in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39), as amended by Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 81), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11), in so far as it maintained, after review, the listing of the applicant’s name in Annex VIII to Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 1), and, secondly, of Article 16(2) of Regulation No 961/2010 and of Article 19(1)(b) and Article 20(1)(b) of Decision 2010/413, in so far as those provisions concern the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action as having been brought before a court that has no jurisdiction to hear it, in so far as it seeks annulment of Article 19(1)(b) and Article 20(1)(b) of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP, and as being inadmissible, in so far as it seeks annulment of Article 16(2) of Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007;

               2.

               Annuls Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413 concerning restrictive measures against Iran, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as those measures maintained, after review, the name of Sina Bank in Annex II to Decision 2010/413, as amended by Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010 amending Decision 2010/413, and in Annex VIII to Regulation No 961/2010, respectively;

               3.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear four fifths of its own costs and to pay four fifths of the costs of Sina Bank;

               4.

               Orders Sina Bank to bear one fifth of its own costs and to pay one fifth of the Council’s costs.

      (1)  OJ C 109, 14.4.2012.